Opinion 26-97
May 7, 2026
Digest: A family court judge may serve on the faculty of a not-for-profit judicial educational organization, but may not accept travel reimbursement from an Animal Legal Defense Fund grant to present on topics relating to animal rights.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(H)(1); Opinions 24-159; 19-127; 12-167; 04-15; 03-54; 96-106.
Opinion:
The inquiring family court judge has been invited to serve on the faculty of a not-for-profit educational organization that provides training to judges, in connection with an upcoming conference on animal rights issues. The conference is co-sponsored by the organization, a law school, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), and reimbursement for travel expenses of conference attendees and faculty is funded by a grant from ALDF to the organization. The judge asks if it is ethically permissible to accept the faculty position, where the judge will lecture on an animal rights topic at the conference and elsewhere “upon request,” given that reimbursement for the judge’s travel expenses will be funded by an ALDF grant.
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 may engage in extra-judicial activities that are compatible with judicial office if they do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). As relevant here, a full-time judge may “receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses” for permissible extra-judicial activities “if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge’s performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety” (22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1]).
We have advised that judges may attend a judicial education program on land use issues sponsored by the National Judicial College where program expenses for the judges, including travel and lodging, were paid by the College using grant money from a not-for-profit housing industry trade association (see Opinion 96-106). The College, rather than the trade association, selected the faculty and course content, and the court system selected the judges who would attend (see id.). We have also said a judge may apply for and accept funding from a local County Traffic Safety Board to attend judicial educational programs at the National Judicial College (see Opinion 19-127). In that instance, we observed that the Safety Board was “not oriented toward punishment and deterrence,” had “no financial or referral connection” to the judge, and was unlikely to have the subject matter of its investigations or recommendations come before the judge (id.).[1]
Here, the judge seeks not only to attend the conference, but to become a member of the faculty, and receive reimbursement of travel expenses as a lecturer, where the judge knows the funds will specifically come from ALDF. We will take these issues one at a time.
Participating as a faculty member at legal education programs is generally permissible (see e.g. Opinions 03-54 [judge may be a panelist and lecturer on the law of evidence at the annual meeting of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers]; 12-167 [judge may speak without compensation at continuing legal education program co-sponsored by local hospital and corporate sponsor]; 04-15 [judge may be an uncompensated speaker or panelist in legal education programs co-sponsored by bar associations, not-for-profit corporations, law firms, or for-profit corporations]). We see no reason for a different result here, where the judge will be speaking about legal topics relating to animal law, animal rights, the human-animal bond, and/or links between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence.
Receiving reimbursement from an ALDF grant to discuss these topics, however, is not permissible. In Opinion 24-159, a judge asked if he/she may accept an adjunct position that is funded by a grant or stipend from the Animal Legal Defense Fund to teach an animal law course at a law school. While we saw no impropriety in teaching such a course, we concluded the judge may not accept compensation directly or indirectly from the ALDF grant. We noted the ALDF is an advocacy group that “files high-impact lawsuits to protect animals from harm, provides free legal assistance and training to prosecutors in their fight against animal cruelty, supports animal protection legislation, and provides resources and opportunities to law students and professionals to advance the field of animal law” (id.). We reasoned (id.):
While it is unlikely that the Animal Legal Defense Fund will appear as a party in Family Court, issues relating to ownership of a pet, terms of a protective order, abuse of a pet as a factor in custody or parental fitness, or use of a pet as leverage in domestic conflicts, may and do arise in Family Court proceedings. A judge known to receive funding directly or indirectly from an animal rights advocacy group, however well-intentioned, might well be perceived to harbor a predilection in such cases, or to accord issues relating to animal welfare undue importance.
We therefore concluded it was not ethically permissible to receive compensation from ALDF for teaching the course, even where the proposed grant was given to the law school, which in turn used it to compensate the judge (id.).
For similar reasons, we conclude that the inquiring judge may not accept expense reimbursement specifically funded by an ALDF grant for travel expenses associated with presenting on topics relating to animal rights.
[1] Conversely, we said a judge may not request or accept funding from a local victim impact panel to attend judicial training at the National Judicial College (see Opinion 19-127). We found that it “could erode public confidence in the judge’s impartiality,” given that the panel is “is funded exclusively from the fees defendants pay to attend pursuant to court orders” and that judicial training at the College is not aligned with the panel’s stated purpose (id.).