Opinion 25-195

December 18, 2025

Digest:  A part-time judge who is the sole owner and chief executive officer of a company may not permit the company to make political contributions or otherwise engage in political activity prohibited by the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.  If the judge concludes that the company needs to engage in such activities, then continued ownership and operation of the company is ethically incompatible with judicial office and the judge must choose between the two positions.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.5(A)(1); 100.5(A)(1)(c), (h); 100.6(B)(4); Opinions 25-31; 23-227; 08-161; 02-68; 88-56.

Opinion:

          A new part-time judge is the sole owner and chief executive of a construction company.  The company is “actively involved in the political arena and public agendas to help promote high profile projects,” both directly and through membership in various trade associations.  The judge believes it is necessary for the company to engage in partisan political activity, including making political contributions and lobbying.  On these facts, the judge asks if it is ethically permissible for him/her to own and operate the company after assuming part-time judicial office.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes the public’s confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A part-time judge “may accept private employment…, provided that such employment is not incompatible with judicial office and does not conflict or interfere with the proper performance of the judge's duties” (22 NYCRR 100.6[B][4]).  A judge may not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity” unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]).  Prohibited activities include, for example, “engaging in any partisan political activity” (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][c]) and “making a contribution to a political organization or candidate” (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][h]).

          Clearly, a part-time judge who is the sole owner and chief executive officer of a company may not permit the company to make political contributions or otherwise engage in political activity prohibited by the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]; 100.5[A][1][h]). 

We have recognized that “a part-time judge may, under appropriate conditions, engage in business with political organizations,” provided the judge “receives reasonable and customary compensation” for the services rendered and “does not request or accept political favors in connection with the transaction” (Opinion 08-161). Similar principles apply if a part-time attorney judge wishes to provide legal or ethical advice to a political party or candidate (see Opinions 25-31; 02-68).  In that context, we emphasized that “fair compensation is required to avoid even the appearance of making an in-kind contribution [of legal services] to a political organization or candidate” (Opinion 25-31).

          Thus, we have advised that a part-time judge who co-owns and operates a restaurant with his/her spouse must “not permit the restaurant to make contributions, donate gift certificates or offer reduced rates to political organizations” and must receive “reasonable and customary compensation” when providing catering services to political organizations (Opinion 08-161).  Again, similar principles apply when a part-time judge is a member of a law firm, because when a law firm makes a political donation, “it is correctly presumed that a percentage of the donation comes from the judge” (Opinion 88-56 [emphasis added]).

          We have considered whether to apply or extend the narrow exception we carved out in Opinion 23-227, and we conclude it is inapplicable.  There, the part-time attorney judge was a minority partner in a law firm “where the majority of partners are non-judges and the non-judge partners have established a political action committee in the law firm’s name funded solely by voluntary contributions of individual partners” (id.).  Moreover, we said the judge “must not participate in the PAC’s operations or decision-making” and must advise the law firm in writing of this and certain other limitations (id.).  No such limitations are possible here, as the judge is the sole owner and chief executive officer of the company. 

          On the facts presented, owning and operating a construction company that will make political contributions and otherwise remain engaged in impermissible political activity is ethically incompatible with part-time judicial office.  Accordingly, the inquiring judge must choose between the positions.