Opinion 25-132

September 10, 2025

Digest:  A judge may speak to attorneys interested in pursuing public service as judges in a “judicial pipeline program” organized by a not-for-profit entity, even where the program focuses on public interest and progressive lawyers, but should exercise caution to avoid any perception of involvement in impermissible political activity. 

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.5(A)(1); Opinions 17-33; 17-12; 16-151.

Opinion:

          The inquiring full-time judge has been invited to participate in a “judicial pipeline program” organized by a not-for-profit alternatives to incarceration entity.  The pipeline program is intended to help identify and prepare “public interest and progressive lawyers who are interested in pursuing New York state court judgeships.”  The program seeks to educate participants about judicial selection in New York, and also offers “mentorship, resources, and ongoing support” to interested participants.  The judge asks if it is permissible to speak with program participants individually and/or as a group about the judge’s “personal experience running for elected judicial office and related topics.”

          A judge must always 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 may participate in extra-judicial activities that are compatible with judicial office and do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; detract from the dignity of judicial office; or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties and are not incompatible with judicial office (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  However, a sitting judge must not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity,” unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]).

          In general, judges may participate in extra-judicial activity that is intended to support or encourage individuals in their pursuit of legal and/or judicial careers, subject to generally applicable limitations such as the public comment rule, the prohibition on impermissible ex parte communications, and the need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see e.g. Opinions 17-33; 17-12; 16-151). 

          Of particular relevance here, we have said a sitting judge may participate in a judicial mentoring program which will pair them with an attorney who wishes to seek judicial office (see Opinion 16-151):

[T]he key question here is not whether a sitting judge may volunteer as a judicial mentor for an attorney who is applying to become a judge, but how to do so in a manner that will avoid both the appearance, and the reality, that the judge is (a) lending the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests and/or (b) directly or indirectly involved in a political campaign or other impermissible political activity.

In our analysis, we emphasized the need to avoid “a public perception of entanglement of the judiciary itself in the political process” (Opinion 16-151 [citation omitted]).  Thus, for example, we said a mentor judge “must not advise his/her mentee on campaign strategy, campaign literature or other outreach to voters or political leaders” (id.) and “may not contact political party leaders or others on the mentee’s behalf” (id.).  By contrast, the mentor judge “may review and comment on an attorney mentee’s application to a judicial screening panel, and may share his/her own experience in going through the elective or appointive process to become a judge” (id.).

          Here, too, we conclude the inquiring judge may participate in a not-for-profit entity’s “judicial pipeline program” by speaking with program participants individually and/or as a group about the judge’s personal experience running for elected judicial office, provided the judge adheres to the guidelines above and exercises caution to avoid any perception of involvement in impermissible political activity.  The fact that the pipeline’s target audience is “public interest and progressive lawyers” does not render the judge’s participation impermissible.