Opinion 26-20(A)
February 5, 2026
Digest: A full-time judge may serve as an officer of a not-for-profit organization which strives to inspire and connect women of a particular ethnic group, provided the judge is not personally involved in the solicitation of funds or in-kind donations and does not otherwise permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(D); 100.3(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3)(a)(i)-(ii); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(i), (iv); Opinions 24-104; 23-140; 20-71; 15-171; 14-153; 11-137; 11-32; 09-170; 08-193; 97-64.
Opinion:
A judge asks if he/she may serve as an officer of 100 Hispanic Women, a not-for-profit civic or cultural organization “aimed at inspiring Latinas, networking and giving back to the community.” The organization describes itself on its website as “an organization of dynamic and accomplished leaders” which “strives to eliminate obstacles and encourages Latinas to be innovative, maximize our potential, create strategic partnerships, promote inclusion in government and corporate America, and improve Hispanics’ status.” According to the judge, a “main focus” of the organization is to award scholarships every year, and it solicits both money and toys to this end. The organization also hosts other events throughout the year, including “a literature event and networking event.” The judge recognizes he/she will not be able to solicit funds, toy donations, or memberships, but asks if he/she may continue to attend board meetings and other events hosted by the organization.
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]), but the judge may engage in extra-judicial activities that are compatible with judicial office and do not cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). A judge may be a member of “an organization ... dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, cultural or other values of legitimate common interest to its members” (22 NYCRR 100.2[D]), but not one “that practices invidious discrimination” (id.). A judge may be an officer of a not-for-profit educational, charitable, cultural, fraternal, or civic organization, provided the organization is unlikely to be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or, in the case of a full-time judge, engaged regularly in adversary proceedings “in any court” (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][a][i]-[ii]). A judge also may be listed as an officer of the organization on the organization’s regular letterhead, “provided the letterhead lists only the judge’s name and office or other position in the organization, and, if comparable designations are listed for other persons, the judge's judicial designation” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][iv]). The judge may neither “personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]), nor permit the use of judicial prestige “for fund-raising or membership solicitation” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][iv]). A judge may nonetheless “assist” the organization in “planning fund-raising” and “participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][a][i]).
We have advised that a judge may serve as an officer of a not-for-profit fraternal organization whose members are “committed to constructive development of its members and to public service” involving a racial, ethnic, or cultural group to which the judge belongs (see Opinion 15-171) or on the board of directors of a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit charitable organization that seeks to “promote the Polish-American community and relations with Poland” (Opinion 20-71).
The ban on personal solicitation of funds reaches broadly. For example, a judge may not personally sign or send fund-raising letters on behalf of an organization or post announcements about an organization’s fund-raising activities or initiatives on social media (see Opinion 23-140). Indeed, we have recognized the “ban on personally soliciting funds and fund-raising activities also includes soliciting non-cash or in-kind donations” (Opinion 14-153 [quotation omitted]). But the fact that a not-for-profit organization engages in fund-raising does not necessarily preclude the judge from serving as a member, volunteer, or officer (see e.g. Opinions 24-104; 97-64). Indeed, the rules expressly permit a judge to assist in planning an organization’s fund-raising, provided he/she “is not personally involved in the solicitation of funds and does not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation” (Opinion 11-137).
Provided the judge will not be involved in any fund-raising, we have also advised that a judge may serve on a bar association foundation that “award[s] scholarships to female law students in order to advance the status of women in the legal profession” (Opinion 11-32); on a not-for-profit fraternal organization’s scholarship committee (see Opinion 15-171); on a panel that will award annual student-athlete scholarships on behalf of a hospital’s community relations board (see Opinion 08-193); or on the board of a local not-for profit organization that awards scholarships to aspiring seminarians (see Opinion 09-170).
On the facts presented, we therefore conclude that the inquiring judge may serve as an officer of 100 Hispanic Women, but may not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or in-kind donations, nor otherwise allow the use of judicial prestige in fund-raising, solicitation of in-kind donations, or membership solicitation. The judge’s name may appear in the organization’s newsletter, and his/her judicial designation (such as “Hon.”) may be included if comparable designations are used for other officers on the letterhead.