Opinion 25-122
September 10, 2025
Digest: A full-time judge may participate in a low-stakes online fantasy football league composed of attorneys who seldom appear in the judge’s court and are former colleagues or acquaintances of the judge. Should an attorney acquaintance appear in a proceeding before the judge, neither disqualification nor disclosure is required merely because they are members of the same league, provided the judge can be fair and impartial.
Rules: Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A)-(B); 100.3(E)(1); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); Opinions 18-65; 12-151; 11-125; White v Cuomo, 38 NY3d 209 (2022).
Opinion:
A full-time judge asks if he/she may participate in an online fantasy football league[1] with attorneys who could potentially appear before him/her. The judge states that this “low-stakes” ($20-$100 limit) fantasy football league is made up of lawyers who are either former colleagues or acquaintances of the judge and who seldom, if ever, appear in the judge’s court. Interaction between league members mostly takes place during an online “draft” period before the start of the football season, when league members select players for their fantasy teams. Once the fantasy league season begins, there is little to no communication among the league members; the league holds no in-person events, draft or watch parties, or end-of-season wrap-up events. Members may follow weekly statistical results of each league member online.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). Thus, extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and the judge must conduct them so they do not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). In addition, a judge must not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]), and must disqualify in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), including in specific circumstances required by rule or law (see generally id.; Judiciary Law § 14).
Participation in Fantasy Football League – Generally
In our view, participating in a low-stakes fantasy football league with social friends and former colleagues is an ethically permissible extra-judicial activity. Significantly, the Court of Appeals upheld the New York State Legislature’s determination that interactive fantasy sports are skill-based games not prohibited by the constitution’s gambling prohibition (see White v Cuomo, 38 NY3d 209, 228 [2022]).[2] In essence, the Court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated that fantasy sports contests “are not games of chance because the outcome is predominantly dependent upon the skill of the participants” (id. at 225) and that their outcome “turns . . . on whether the participant has skillfully composed and managed a virtual roster so as to garner more fantasy points than rosters composed by other participants” (id. at 227). We see no prohibition on such activities in the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.
Participation in Fantasy Football League with Attorney Members
The remaining issue is whether it is ethically permissible for the judge to participate in the league, given that its membership consists of lawyers who could potentially appear before the judge. To date, none of the members have appeared before the judge, and the judge considers the possibility remote. On these facts, we see no ethical impropriety for the judge to participate as a member of the fantasy football league.
Should an attorney who is a member of the league appear before the judge, the judge must assess whether he/she is required to disqualify or disclose the relationship (see Opinion 11-125 [defining three broad categories of interpersonal relationships in assessing judge’s ethical obligations when attorney appears]).
An “acquaintance” relationship exists where “interactions outside court result from happenstance or some coincidental circumstance such as being members of the same profession, religion, civic or professional organization, etc.” (Opinion 11-125). We advised that “the mere fact that a judge is acquainted with and cordial to an attorney who appears before the judge when they come into contact outside the court — even if such contacts are regular or periodic — without more, is not a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality” (id. [citations omitted]). For example, where an attorney who belongs to the same golf club as the judge is no more than an “acquaintance,” we said that “neither disqualification nor disclosure is required . . . when the attorney/club member appears” (Opinion 12-151).
Accordingly, the mere fact that an attorney appearing before the inquiring judge is a member of the judge’s fantasy sports league requires neither disqualification nor disclosure, provided the judge can be fair and impartial. If the judge concludes that his/her relationship with the attorney is that of an “acquaintance” under Opinion 11-125, then “neither disqualification nor disclosure is required provided the judge believes he/she can be fair and impartial. Rather, any decisions to disclose the nature of the relationship and any subsequent disqualification are left solely in the judge’s discretion” (id.).
[1] Fantasy football is a game where participants “create virtual ‘teams,’ drawing from their knowledge of the sport and athlete performance to draft rosters comprised of simulated players based on professional athletes” (White v Cuomo, 38 NY3d 209, 213 [2022]). Participants then look at real-life statistics over the course of the season to compare how their virtual teams do against each other.
[2] It should be noted that judges “may participate in lawful gambling activities” (Opinion 18-65 [citations omitted]).