Opinion 26-06

February 5, 2026

Digest: A judge may remain in a text message chain with personal friends, even when some of those friends are also local political leaders. The judge must exercise caution to avoid political activity and otherwise comply with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.

Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A)-(C); 100.3(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.5(A)(1); Opinions 18-74; 11-125; 08-176.

Opinion:

The inquiring judge, who is new to the bench, asks whether he/she may remain on “a long-standing text message chain with local political leaders who are also the judge’s friends.” All five participants are personal friends who socialize both via text and in real life at non-political events. The text message chain “includes discussions about family, personal matters and local and national politics,” but the judge will refrain from commenting on political matters. The judge also notes that one friend in the group has become an elected public official.

A judge 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]). A judge’s judicial duties “take precedence” over all his/her other activities (22 NYCRR 100.3[A]). Therefore, a judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not, for example, cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge or otherwise interfere with proper performance of judicial duties (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). A judge must not allow social or political relationships to influence his/her conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]), nor permit anyone to “convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]). A judge must not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]). A judge also may not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity” unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]).

As described, the text message chain is a social activity among personal friends, rather than a group organized around a political purpose. We conclude that participating in a text message chain that includes elected public officials or other politically active individuals is not, by itself, unethical.

The judge’s participation is, of course, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct. A judge who participates in an ongoing text message chain, like a judge who participates in social networks, must exercise “an appropriate level of prudence, discretion and decorum” to ensure that their conduct is consistent with their ethical responsibilities (Opinion 08-176). For example, the judge must not be drawn into prohibited political activity (see 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]) and must abide by the public comment rule (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]).^{^[1]}

In addition, if any of these friends appear before the judge in any capacity, the judge must consider his/her ethical obligations under Opinion 11-125.

[1] Because “any online communications may potentially be forwarded, captured in a screen-shot, or printed out,” we have urged judges to “assume that their online communications are not private” in informal/social contexts (Opinion 18-74).

Editorial Note 3/30/2026: Correction made before publication.