Opinion 25-129
September 10, 2025
Digest: A full-time judge who is a
member of the clergy:
(1) may serve as a volunteer chaplain for a transit authority or for branches
of the United States military;
(2) may attend a not-for-profit religious organization’s roll call, award
ceremonies, and medal day ceremonies honoring police officers and first
responders;
(3) may attend free non-partisan “meet the candidate” events sponsored by a
not-for-profit religious organization, but may not serve as a speaker or master
of ceremonies unless (a) the event is not a fund-raiser, (b) someone else introduces the candidates, and (c) the judge
avoids any commentary beyond formal procedural matters;
(4) may not serve on a District Attorney’s “Hate Crimes Task Force”;
(5) may serve as a speaker or master of ceremonies at an elected official’s
cultural event, where the event is free and open to the public and paid for
with government funds rather than campaign funds; and
(6) may not give an invocation at free public security briefings by the local
police department, but may attend the briefings, provided no impression of
alliance with law enforcement is given.
Opinion:
A full-time judge who is also a member of the clergy asks a series of questions regarding extra-judicial activities.
A judge must 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]). A judge must not personally solicit funds or otherwise participate in fund-raising activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i]) and must not permit the use of judicial prestige for fund-raising or membership solicitation (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][iv]). A judge may attend a not-for-profit religious or civic organization’s fund-raising events, but “may not be a speaker or the guest of honor” at such events (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][ii]). In addition, a full-time judge must not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy in matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][2][a]). A judge may otherwise generally engage in extra-judicial activities compatible with judicial office that do not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge, (2) detract from judicial dignity, or (3) interfere with the proper conduct of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).
1. Volunteer Chaplain
The judge first asks if it is permissible to serve as a volunteer chaplain for a local transit authority and for branches of the United States military. This involves unpaid spiritual care and pastoral services such as wellness visits, funerals, and bereavement counseling.[1]
We note initially that service as a volunteer chaplain for a government entity is not a “governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][2][a]; cf. Opinion 22-06 [concluding that full-time judge may volunteer as county rescue diver, where dive team members are not county employees and not concerned with issues of fact or policy]). Significantly, the volunteer position does not appear to be a public office or trust, and is essentially pastoral in nature.
On the facts presented, we can see no appearance of impropriety. Indeed, we have previously advised that a part-time judge may serve as a per diem chaplain for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) in another county, subject to disqualification in certain matters (see Opinion 22-127).
Accordingly, this judge may serve as a volunteer chaplain for a municipal transit authority or for branches of the United States military. The judge should, of course, be sensitive to the possibility that individuals who are counseled may appear in the judge’s court and disqualify where appropriate (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]; Opinion 22-127 [part-time judge employed as per diem chaplain for DOCCS must disqualify from matters involving inmate to whom the judge rendered pastoral care]).
2. Religious Organization’s Events Honoring Police and First Responders
The judge next asks if he/she may attend a not-for-profit religious organization’s roll call, award ceremonies, and medal day ceremonies honoring police and first responders.
We have advised that a judge may attend a police benevolent association’s awards dinner and tribute to fallen officers (see Opinion 11-67). Here, too, we conclude the inquiring judge may attend a not-for-profit religious organization’s roll call, award ceremonies, and medal day ceremonies honoring police officers and first responders.[2]
3. Religious Organization’s “Meet the Candidate” Events
The judge asks if it is permissible to serve as master of ceremonies or speak at free non-partisan “meet the candidate legislative breakfasts” sponsored by the Council of Jewish Organizations (COJO), a not-for-profit religious organization. The event is not a fund-raiser and the judge explains that COJO “does not endorse candidates” and “all candidates are invited.” Further, the judge indicates these breakfasts are “informational where elected officials and candidates state their positions and field questions and answers.”
Where, as here, a “meet the candidates” event is non-partisan and sponsored by a not-for-profit religious organization rather than by a political organization, we conclude a judge may attend the event and even ask questions as an audience member, being careful not to give the impression of endorsing a particular candidate (see Opinions 16-149; 08-05; 90-177).
In Opinion 03-129, we advised that a judge may serve as master of ceremonies at a similar free, non-fund-raising “meet the candidates” breakfast, but should have another individual at the breakfast, rather than the judge, introduce public officials who are actively engaged in campaigns for election to public office.
Here, too, we conclude this judge may attend COJO’s free, non-partisan “meet the candidates” events. Provided the event is not a fund-raiser, the judge may also serve as a speaker or master of ceremonies at such event in a limited capacity. The judge must have someone else introduce the candidates, and should avoid any commentary beyond formal procedural matters.
4. District Attorney’s “Hate Crimes Task Force”
The judge asks if it is permissible to serve on a District Attorney’s “Hate Crimes Task Force,” which seeks to prevent hateful acts through education. The District Attorney (DA) personally co-chairs the task force, and its homepage is hosted on the DA’s website. While most members are affiliated with various religious, cultural and civic organizations, reflecting the DA’s effort to include “communities that are historically targeted and victimized by hate-based crime,” we note that the membership also includes a high-ranking official of a law enforcement agency’s hate crimes unit. It is not clear that any defense perspectives are represented on the task force. Members are expected to “serve as ambassadors” for the task force’s work within and beyond their own communities.
Although “the community benefits from having judges take an active part in community affairs whenever possible,” we have made clear that “the event must not be so extraordinarily one-sided in nature that the judge’s mere attendance would necessarily cast doubt on his/her ability to be impartial” (Opinion 17-146). Indeed, we have advised that a judge may not participate in a DA’s free athletic/sporting event “to help raise awareness and prevent domestic violence,” where it is “organized and promoted solely by the local District Attorney’s office” (Opinion 18-147 [noting event promotion emphasized affiliation with DA]).
Here, the proposed task force is solely sponsored and hosted by the DA’s office, and the DA him/herself is serving as co-chair. On these facts, and also noting the current composition of the task force and the apparent requirement to serve as an ambassador for the task force, we conclude the judge may not serve on a District Attorney’s “Hate Crimes Task Force.”
5. Cultural Events Sponsored by Elected Officials
The judge asks if it is permissible to serve as master of ceremonies or speak at an elected official’s non-political cultural events, which are not paid for with campaign funds. These include food festivals, Menorah and holiday lightings, and other such cultural gatherings that are free and open to the public.
We have said a judge may attend a cultural/holiday event hosted by elected officials, where the event is free and open to the public and is not sponsored by or affiliated with the officials’ campaign committees or any other political organization but is instead paid for with state/government funds (see Opinions 25-64; 23-122). Indeed, we advised that a judge may “participate as a judge in a free hat contest/pageant during the event” (Opinion 25-64). In reaching that conclusion, we emphasized that the contest was “not a fund-raiser” and the judge’s proposed role was “unlikely to create any reasonable perception that the judge is endorsing the legislators or their policies” (id.).
We now extend that permission to speaking at such events, including as master of ceremonies, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct. In particular, we caution the judge to be mindful of the restrictions on political activity and endorsements (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]).
6. Police Department’s Free Public Security Briefings
Finally, the judge asks if he/she may attend public security briefings given by the local police department to community leaders and officials. The briefings are free and open to the public, and often focus on security issues relating to religious holidays. If it is permissible to attend, the judge further asks if he/she may also give an invocation at the security briefing.
We have said that a town justice may attend and observe public town board meetings, “as any other interested citizen of the town may do,” to learn about issues affecting the town (Opinion 19-158). Here, too, we see no appearance of impropriety in the judge’s mere attendance at the police department’s public security briefings. Observing the security briefing, without more, cannot reasonably create an impermissible impression of alliance with law enforcement interests.
“[A] judge must strive to avoid not only the reality, but also the appearance, that he/she is aligned in interest with law enforcement” (Opinion 13-123). Applying this principle to extra-judicial activities is necessarily a fact-specific determination. Here, in order to avoid “any possible perception that he/she is aligned with law enforcement interests” (Opinion 14-77), we conclude the judge must not give the invocation at this law enforcement event.
[1] The judge notes that the rules of the applicable religious body affirmatively forbid compensation for these services. As a result, we need not consider the applicability of Section 100.4(H) to the judge’s proposed service as a chaplain for the municipal transit authority (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1][c][1] [“No full-time judge shall solicit or receive compensation for extra-judicial activities performed for or on behalf of: (1) New York State, its political subdivisions or any office or agency thereof”]).
[2] Although the judge asks only about attendance, we note that the judge must not be “a speaker or the guest of honor” at such event if it is a fund-raiser (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][ii]).