Opinion 26-35
March 26, 2026
Digest: A part-time judge may serve as an uncompensated co-host of a weekly radio program that informs listeners about humanitarian work and quality of life matters, even if the program airs on a commercial radio station, provided the judge does not endorse or otherwise advance the interests of any commercial sponsors.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.3(B)(6), (8); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(i), (iv); 100.4(D)(3); 100.6(B)(1); Opinions 25-99; 23-140; 20-81(B); 17-163/18-03/18-21; 89-146.
Opinion:
A part-time judge asks if he/she may co-host a weekly radio program which discusses a wide range of “humanitarian work locally and throughout the world.” According to its website, the program strives to inform and entertain the public, by sharing “not only humanitarian information but also ways to improve our quality of life.” The program airs on certain commercial radio stations, within a block of public service shows and/or community radio programming, and does not solicit donations or otherwise engage in fund-raising activities. While the co-hosts are “uncompensated volunteers,” the judge notes that the program is commercially sponsored “to cover [production] costs.”
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s ability to act impartially as a judge; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). A judge must not lend judicial prestige to advance “private interests” nor permit anyone to “convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence” him/her (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]). Likewise, a judge may neither “personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]) nor “use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][iv]). A judge must not make any public comment about “a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]) and must avoid impermissible ex parte communications (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6]). While a full-time judge may not be “officer, director, manager, general partner, advisor, employee or other active participant” of a business entity (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[D][3]), this provision does not apply to part-time judges (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][1]).
We have advised that a part-time judge may appear as a legal commentator/analyst on television or online streaming shows, provided he/she does not comment on any pending or reasonably foreseeable cases in the United States or its territories (see Opinion 20-81[B]). We also advised that a full-time judge may appear, without compensation, on a commercially produced news segment in honor of the achievements of individuals who share a particular racial, ethnic, or cultural background or heritage (see Opinion 17-163/18-03/18-21). Indeed, we noted a long line of prior opinions saying judges “may participate in a traditional news program or talk show, even if it will air on a commercial television or radio station” (id.). We have also advised that a judge may host “a regularly scheduled television show about the law, including court procedures,” provided the judge abides by generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct (Opinion 89-146).[1]
In addition to the restrictions mentioned above, we note a judge also may not “promote local businesses and/or businesses operated by the judge’s friends, family, and classmates” (Opinion 23-140).
Thus, we conclude the inquiring part-time judge may serve as an uncompensated co-host of a weekly radio program that informs listeners about humanitarian work and quality of life matters, even if the program airs on a commercial radio station, provided the judge does not endorse or otherwise advance the interests of any commercial sponsors.
[1] We distinguish our recent opinion about a magazine column that would be specifically “sponsored by a business” (Opinion 25-99). There, a full-time judge’s spouse’s business offered to sponsor the judge’s column “to ensure its publication” (id.), and we concluded this would “impermissibly lend judicial prestige to the judge’s spouse and to the spouse’s business and could create an appearance that the judge is an advisor or active participant in the spouse’s business” (id.). We see no such risks with the co-hosted radio program here, which is unlikely, as described, to create any impression of a special connection between the judge and a business sponsor.