Opinion 25-196

February 5, 2026

Digest: A court attorney-referee may not allow a professional photographer to use the referee’s photograph in a video shown on the photographer’s professional social media.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.3(A); 100.6(A); Opinions 15-109; 15-103; 05-126; 01-46; 97-133; 89-123.

Opinion:

          A court attorney-referee asks if he/she may allow a friend who is a professional photographer to use the referee’s photograph in an “educational” video for social media.  The video would demonstrate how the photographer transformed the referee’s “selfie” into a professional-looking headshot using artificial intelligence software, and “would be promoted” across various social media platforms “to increase viewership.”  The photographer’s social media sites contain references and links to the photographer’s commercial endeavors.  The video would not include the referee’s name or title.

          As quasi-judicial officials, court attorney-referees must comply with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct “in the performance of their judicial functions” and use them as guides for their other conduct “so far as practical and appropriate” (22 NYCRR 100.6[A]).  Thus, they must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  Among other restrictions, they must not lend judicial prestige to advance any private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

          A judge may not allow a photographer to use a photograph of the judge standing in front of law books on the photographer’s business card, even where the judge is not identified by name or by judicial title (see Opinion 89-123).  As we explained (id.):

use of the judge’s picture on the photographer’s business card involves the judge’s lending the prestige of judicial office to a commercial enterprise.  Even though the judge is not identified on the business card by name, or as a judge, potential clients of the photographer could recognize the judge, and thus the judge may be assisting the photographer’s business.

          We have applied this principle in other contexts as well, concluding that a judge may not provide a testimonial for a criminal practice treatise’s marketing brochure (see Opinion 97-133) or a letter of reference to promote a friend’s real estate business (see Opinion 05-126).  Avoiding reference to a judge’s name or title is no “cure,” as we advised that a judge may not review the professional services of his/her divorce lawyer on an online rating service, even anonymously and without reference to his/her judicial status (Opinion 15-103) and may not allow an agency that ran the judge’s media campaign to quote the judge in its advertising, even if the judge will be identified only as an anonymous judicial “candidate” (Opinion 01-46).  In each instance, we concluded the judge’s proposed involvement would impermissibly lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of another (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).  This prohibition applies both locally and out of state, as neither the rules nor our opinions provide for any geographical limitation (cf. Opinion 15-109).

          We see no reason for a different result here.  A video showing how a professional photographer used specialized software to make the referee’s amateur self-taken photograph resemble a high-quality headshot would associate the referee’s likeness with the photographer’s commercial enterprise. Regardless of the “educational” nature of the video, it will be used to promote the professional reputation and commercial interests of the photographer.  That the court attorney-referee’s name and title would be withheld does not change the result (see Opinions 15-103; 89-123).

          Accordingly, we conclude the inquiring court attorney-referee may not allow a professional photographer to use the referee’s photograph in a video shown on the photographer’s professional social media sites.