Opinion 26-69

May 7, 2026

Digest:  Where the bylaws of a political party’s city committee indicate the associate district leader position (a) is not involved in selecting or voting on judicial candidates and (b) is appointive rather than elective, a judge may permit a personally appointed member of his/her staff to serve in that position. 

Rules:   22 NYCRR 50.1(I); 50.5(e); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.5(C); 100.5(C)(1); Opinions 17-105; 12-71; 00-108; 99-95; 90-102.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge asks if his/her personally appointed principal court attorney may serve as an “associate district leader” on a political party’s city committee.  The bylaws of the city committee indicate that associate district leaders are selected by appointment, rather than election, and have no involvement in endorsing or nominating candidates for public office. 

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 must prohibit members of his/her staff who are the judge’s personal appointees from engaging in certain political activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.5[C]).  As relevant here, a judge’s personal appointee may not hold “an elective office in a political organization, except as … a member of a county committee other than the executive committee of a county committee” (22 NYCRR 100.5[C][1]; see also 22 NYCRR 50.5[e]).

          While a judge must bar his/her personal appointees from engaging in political activities prohibited by Section 100.5(C), we have also advised that “any [political] activity not specifically prohibited by the rules is permitted” (Opinion 90-102).  Thus, for example, a judge’s law clerk may serve as a member of a county committee of a political party, though not on its executive committee (see Opinion 99-95).  And when a judge’s law secretary wished to serve as a “co-zone leader” for a local political party, rather than as a county committee person, we looked to whether that position was in fact appointive rather than elective (see Opinion 00-108).

          We are also mindful that the Unified Court System’s Nonjudicial Ethics Helpline (1-888-283-8442) has taken the position under Part 50 that nonjudicial court employees may not participate in judicial selection panels or committees, and are prohibited from reviewing confidential information relating to judicial applicants who are judges or nonjudicial employees of the Unified Court System, as these activities may create an appearance of impropriety (see Non-Judicial Ethics FAQs [Feb. 2026] at 3).  Under Part 100, we have previously recognized that where an outside position “appears to provide a court employee with influence” over judges, it “could significantly compromise at least the appearance of judicial independence” (Opinion 17-105 [citations omitted]).

          Here, the city committee’s bylaws indicate that the position of associate district leader is appointive rather than elective in nature and has no involvement in selecting or voting on judicial candidates.  Accordingly, we conclude the inquiring judge may permit his/her principal court attorney to serve in this position.  The judge “should instruct” the court attorney “not to create the impression that the judge is engaged in political activities” and “should advise him/her that political activities are not permitted in the court house or during the [court attorney]’s working hours” (Opinion 12-71).