Opinion 26-77

May 7, 2026

Digest:  A judge may not offer a gift of used furniture to an attorney who occasionally appears before the judge.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.2(C); Opinions 25-116; 22-138; 15-186; 12-21.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge owns children’s furniture he/she no longer needs, and has learned that an attorney who sometimes appears before him/her has young children.  The judge asks whether it is ethically permissible to offer the furniture to the attorney, with the understanding that the attorney would come to the judge’s home to disassemble the furniture and remove it.

          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 (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  Thus, a judge must not allow “family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment” (22 NYCRR 100.2[B]) and must not “convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

          Generally, although the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct “explicitly restrict a judge’s acceptance of a gift, bequest, favor or loan, they do not impose equivalent restrictions on gifts a judge may make” (Opinion 12-21 [citations omitted]).  For example, we have advised that a judge may, subject to certain limitations, attend the wedding of an attorney who regularly appears before the judge, and give the couple a gift (see Opinion 22-138).  We also said a judge may offer his/her private law library for free to members of a local bar association on a “first-come, first-serve basis,” and need not disclose or disqualify him/herself from matters in which an attorney recipient appears (see Opinion 12-21).  We reasoned that, “because the gift will be made available to all local attorneys on an equal basis, there is no reasonable inference that an attorney who has benefitted from the judge’s generosity has any relationship with the judge that might warrant disclosure or disqualification” (id.).

          Where, however, the offer was not made to the entire bar, but only to select members, we have viewed the circumstances differently (see e.g. Opinions 25-116; 15-186).  Of particular note, we said a judge may not host a party at the courthouse for two prosecutors who regularly appear before the judge and are expectant parents (see Opinion 25-116).  We concluded that such gesture, to celebrate the upcoming birth of a child, “no matter how gracious and well-intentioned, could create the possible appearance of favoritism, which judges must avoid” (id.).

Here, too, we reach the same conclusion.  In our view, the proposed arrangement, as described, could create the possible appearance of favoritism.  Accordingly, the inquiring judge may not offer a gift of used furniture to an attorney who occasionally appears before the judge.