Opinion 26-98
May 7, 2026
Digest: (1) The Fund For Modern Courts
is a “bar association” for purposes of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct,
and therefore a judge may be a speaker or guest of honor at its fund-raisers
and may accept free admission to its events.
(2) The Center for Justice Innovation and the Legal Aid Society are not “bar
associations” for purposes of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. Thus,
while a judge may purchase tickets and attend their fund-raisers, a judge may
not be a speaker or the guest of honor at their fund-raisers. A judge may
nonetheless accept an unadvertised award ancillary to their fund-raising events,
and briefly express thanks for the award. On the facts provided, the judge may
not accept complimentary tickets to gala fund-raisers for these entities,
either from the sponsoring organization or from a law firm that appears before
the judge’s court.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(i)-(ii); 100.4(D)(5); 100.4(D)(5)(a), (c); Opinions 24-136; 22-72; 20-91; 18-91; 13-73; 11-37; 06-117; 04-62.
Opinion:
The inquiring judge has an opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Fund for Modern Courts fund-raiser, to receive an award at a Center for Justice Innovation fund-raiser, and to attend a Legal Aid Society fund-raiser for free. The judge has reviewed Opinions 22-72 and 13-73 and seeks guidance on whether any of these entities may be considered a “bar association” for the purposes of permitting a judge to be “a speaker or the guest of honor” at its fund-raising events (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][ii]). The judge also asks whether it is ethically permissible to accept free admission to these events, either from the sponsoring organization or as a guest of a law firm.
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 not lend the prestige of the judiciary to advance any private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]). 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]). A judge may not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]). With respect to a not-for-profit organization’s fund-raising events, Section 100.4(C)(3)(b)(ii) provides that a judge:
may not be a speaker or the guest of honor at an organization’s fund-raising events, but the judge may attend such events. Nothing in this subparagraph shall prohibit a judge from being a speaker or guest of honor at a court employee organization, bar association or law school function or from accepting at another organization’s fund-raising event an unadvertised award ancillary to such event.
A judge must also refuse a “gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone” unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5]). For example, a judge may accept an invitation “to attend a bar-related function or an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5][a]), and may accept “ordinary social hospitality” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5][c]).
The term “bar association” is not defined in the rules. We have adopted “an inclusive definition of ‘bar association,’ encompassing a wide variety of legal organizations which are composed of members of the bar and whose purpose is to promote and improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice” (Opinion 06-117). This inclusive definition encompasses not only “traditional” bar associations and judicial associations, but also the Historical Society of the New York Courts (see id.), as well as foundations that support “programs related to the administration of justice, research and develop policy recommendations for the courts, and organize and finance educational programs and other events for the public and the legal community” (Opinion 13-73). The present inquiry affords us an opportunity to make explicit a nuance we previously recognized in Opinion 22-72.
Fund for Modern Courts
We understand the Fund for Modern Courts to be an independent, non-partisan, statewide court-reform organization, committed to improving the court system for all New Yorkers. It supports the judiciary through research, public outreach, court monitoring, education, and advocacy efforts. In our view, the Fund for Modern Courts is a “bar association” for purposes of a judge speaking or being guest of honor at a fund-raising event (see Opinion 13-73). As a result, we conclude a judge may be a speaker or guest of honor at a Fund for Modern Courts fund-raiser (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][ii]) and accept free admission to its events (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5][a]).
The inquiring judge may therefore be a keynote speaker at a Fund for Modern Courts fund-raiser.
Center for Justice Innovation (CJI)
The CJI, formerly known as the Center for Court Innovation, is a not-for-profit organization that operates as a public/private partnership with the court system to provide social services to adults and/or adolescents who are involved in criminal and/or juvenile delinquency court proceedings. Although its mission may resemble the Fund for Modern Courts, the organizations carry out their missions differently. Courts refer cases to the CJI for assessment and social services based on the mental health or other needs of the defendant, whereas the Fund for Modern Courts does not accept court referrals or otherwise appear in individual cases. These regular court referrals and involvement in specific cases prevent CJI from qualifying as a “bar association” for the purposes of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.
In Opinion 22-72, we concluded that a judge may purchase tickets to and attend a “lavish fund-raising gala” sponsored by the Center for Court Innovation, but could not accept complimentary tickets to the event. In doing so, we concluded the Center for Court Innovation was “not a bar association and its fund-raiser is not ‘a bar related function’ under Section 100.4(D)(5)” (id.). We further concluded that the fund-raiser in question was devoted to raising funds, rather than “an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, legal system or the administration of justice” (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5][a]), and the $350 cost was “lavish and expensive, rather than ‘ordinary social hospitality’ within the meaning of Section 100.4(D)(5)(c)” (id.). We note the tickets here are even more expensive.
Accordingly, we likewise conclude here that the inquiring judge may not accept complimentary tickets to attend this CJI gala fund-raiser, but may purchase tickets and attend.
Because CJI is not a bar association under the rules, the inquiring judge also may not be “a speaker or the guest of honor” at CJI’s fund-raising events (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][ii]). However, the judge may accept “an unadvertised award ancillary to the event,” if offered, and briefly express his/her appreciation for the award (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][ii]; Opinions 20-91; 11-37). As always, such an award must not be pre-announced or mentioned in any invitations or advertising for the event, but may be mentioned at or after the event (see Opinions 24-136; 18-91; 11-37).
Legal Aid Society
We have advised that a judge may purchase a ticket and attend a Legal Aid Society fund-raising event (see e.g. Opinion 04-62). In our view, the Legal Aid Society is not a “bar association” under the rules, but is instead an entity that itself regularly appears in court on behalf of parties to pending matters. We conclude the same analysis applies to the Legal Aid Society event as the CJI event.
Accordingly, the judge may attend a Legal Aid Society fund-raiser, but may not be “a speaker or the guest of honor” there, and may not accept free admission to the event (see Opinion 22-72). Given the high cost of the tickets and the fact that LAS cases regularly appear before the court, we conclude that the acceptance of free tickets from a third party such as a law firm that appears before the judge’s court would, at the very least, create an appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2), and those tickets should not be accepted.