Opinion 25-107

September 10, 2025

Digest:  A judge need not take any further action concerning a friend’s misdirected electronic payment, apparently intended as a campaign contribution for the judge’s child, after the judge’s spouse has moved the funds out of the marital bank account.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.5(A)(1)(c)-(e), (h).

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge’s child is running for election.  A family friend tried to make a contribution to the child’s campaign via an electronic payment system but erroneously sent the funds to a bank account jointly held by the judge and the judge’s spouse.  On learning of the transfer, the judge promptly advised the friend that the judge could not be involved in their child’s campaign and could not accept the money (see e.g. 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][c]-[e], [h]).  Meanwhile, the judge’s spouse independently transferred the funds into the spouse’s own individual bank account and then issued a check to the child’s campaign from that account.  The judge asks if it is necessary to take any further action.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]). 

          The facts here reflect inadvertence on the part of a family friend in attempting to make a contribution to the judge’s child’s campaign.  Moreover, because the friend transferred the funds electronically, rather than by check, the judge had no opportunity to prevent the transfer.  At this point, given that the misdirected contribution has been transferred out of the marital bank account without the judge’s involvement, the matter appears to be fully resolved.  On these facts, we conclude a formal letter of objection would serve no real purpose and the judge thus need not take any further action.