Opinion 26-05
February 5, 2026
Digest: Judges and court employees who serve on a court-sponsored Equal Justice Committee may help deliver food that was independently solicited and collected by an outside not-for-profit charitable organization without reference to the court. They may also invite other current members of the same Equal Justice Committee to participate in the project, provided that participation is entirely voluntary.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(i), (iv); Opinions 23-216; 23-136; 23-83; 20-190; 17-69; 17-55; 14-153; 12-22; 10-157; 10-137; 09-57; 03-137; 98-119; 98-35; 94-58.
Opinion:
The inquiring judge is a co-chair of the local court-sponsored Equal Justice Committee (“EJC”).[1] The judge states that, as part of the EJC’s community outreach, it would like to engage with a not-for-profit charitable organization that serves as a clearing house for donated food by assisting with delivery of the food to shelters, religious institutions, and food pantries on the weekends. Significantly, the food was already solicited and collected by non-judges without any reference to the court system. The inquiring judge asks if judges and nonjudicial court personnel on the EJC may solicit volunteers from within the EJC to pick up and make the weekend food deliveries. The judge indicates that involved EJC members “would be careful to avoid expressly promoting the non-profit entity in any way.”
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office, and must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). A judge may not “lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]). Moreover, a judge may not “personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]) and may not “use or permit the use” of judicial prestige for “fund-raising or membership solicitation” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][iv]).
Clearly, a judge may assist with the logistics and/or delivery of donated items in his/her own name and/or in connection with a not-for-profit charitable organization, provided the judge does not personally promote the in-kind charitable drive or otherwise solicit donations (see e.g. Opinions 17-55; 10-157). Conversely, we have said an administrative judge “may not organize quarterly community volunteer opportunities for the judiciary and non-judicial staff, even if such participation will be strictly voluntary and take place outside of regular court hours” (Opinion 23-216). In reaching that conclusion, we relied on two significant lines of prior opinions.
First, we have generally advised that a judge may not “solicit volunteers” for charitable work because the solicitation could lead to a public perception that the prestige of judicial office is being used to support specific endeavors of a particular entity (see Opinions 23-216; 98-119). Although an established exception permits a judge to solicit volunteers from among current fellow members of a not-for-profit organization for the organization’s projects (see Opinions 10-137; 09-57), we expressly declined to apply this principle in the context of an administrative judge’s proposal to organize volunteer opportunities for the judiciary and nonjudicial staff at large (see Opinion 23-216 fn 1).
Second, we have repeatedly advised against soliciting or making charitable donations in the name of the court (see e.g. Opinions 20-190; 03-137; 98-35; 94-58). In essence, “any involvement that would be seen by the public as fund-raising by the court system itself is also prohibited, and thus the rules barring fund-raising apply not only to judges, but also to courts and court entities, and to fund-raising on court property” (Opinion 14-153 [internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted]). Applying this principle to a “strictly in-chambers initiative organized solely by nonjudicial staff” in which the judge and chambers staff would “adopt” a needy family, we advised that “the judge may not make a charitable contribution in the name of the court and/or chambers, nor permit their employees to do so” (Opinion 20-190).[2]
Here, however, we recognize that the inquiring judge is asking as co-chair of a court-sponsored committee on racial equity. As noted in Opinion 23-83, such committees have been directed by high-level administrative judges to “interact with the local community.”
When weighing all these factors and balancing the roles of the judges in this effort, we also expressly assume that the judges and nonjudicial court employees who join the EJC do so freely and in a civic-minded spirit, hoping to interact with the local community in their off-hours to advance equity in the legal system. Accordingly, we conclude that the EJC and its members, in their capacities as members of the committee, may solicit volunteers from within the EJC to pick up donated food and make the proposed weekend food deliveries (cf. Opinions 17-69; 12-22; 10-137; 09-57). To avoid any appearance of coercion, they must not pressure other members to volunteer. Because the EJC cannot itself conduct a food drive (see e.g. Opinions 03-137; 98-35; 94-58), it is a practical necessity that the EJC must work with an outside not-for-profit charitable organization which has already solicited and collected the food. Given that the not-for-profit organization did so without any reference to the court system and that the EJC members “would be careful to avoid expressly promoting the non-profit entity in any way,” we conclude that the proposed volunteer activity does not, without more, impermissibly lend judicial prestige to the charitable efforts of the entity selected. Moreover, while EJC’s volunteer efforts will associate the Unified Court System with the limited charitable activity of delivering food that others have collected to local non-profit entities for distribution in the community, we conclude this does not create an appearance that the court system is soliciting funds nor otherwise create an appearance of impropriety given the EJC’s special charge.
In sum, judges and court employees who serve on a court-sponsored Equal Justice Committee may help deliver food that was independently solicited and collected by an outside not-for-profit charitable organization without reference to the court. They may also invite other current members of the same Equal Justice Committee to participate in the project, provided that participation is entirely voluntary. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, if a judicial member’s solicitation includes either non-judges or judges who are subject to his/her supervision or appellate authority, the judge must make clear that participation is entirely voluntary.
[1] We understand these committees are part of the Equal Justice in the Courts (EJIC) initiative and are sometimes known by that acronym.
[2] While judges may make charitable contributions “either alone or with co-equal judges . . . and may be identified by name and title in doing so,” we emphasized “this may not be done in the name of the court” (Opinion 20-190).