Opinion 25-35

March 27, 2025

Digest: A full-time judge may participate in a community “Know Your Immigration Rights” webinar co-sponsored by local bar associations, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(4); 100.3(B)(6); 100.3(B)(8)-(9); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(B); 100.4(G); Opinions 24-84; 22-170; 19-29; 17-155; 17-148; 14-35; 13-140; 10-133; 10-102.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge asks if he/she may participate as a panelist in a community “Know Your Immigration Rights” webinar, the stated purpose of which is “to provide the public with essential information and resources regarding recent developments affecting the immigrant community.”  The webinar is co-sponsored by local bar associations and city council members, and the format permits attendees to ask questions of the panelists.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A judge may generally speak, write, lecture, teach, and otherwise engage in extra-judicial activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[B]), but must ensure that such activities are compatible with judicial office and do not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with the performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  A judge also must not publicly comment on a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]); express a bias or predisposition with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before him/her (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][4]; 100.3[B][9]); engage in impermissible ex parte communications (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6]); or, if a full-time judge, provide legal advice (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[G]).

          “In general, a judge may lecture and teach on matters relating to the law and the administration of justice, unless a specific prohibition applies” (Opinion 17-155 [internal quotation omitted]).  Thus, for example, a judge may speak about landlord/tenant law at a free educational forum organized by elected officials (see id.); may appear on a local television news broadcast to answer questions about a predetermined topic relating to the criminal justice system (see Opinion 10-102); may speak about “the procedure for amending the state constitution” at a non-fund-raising dinner of the League of Women Voters (Opinion 24-84); may give a general lecture to congregants about health care directives (see Opinion 19-29); may speak about the Bill of Rights at a public school teachers’ conference (see Opinion 14-35); and may lecture non-lawyer union members on general legal topics at a union event (see Opinion 17-148).  When engaging in such activities, a full-time judge must be careful not to “engage in ‘advocacy’” (Opinion 17-155), nor offer legal advice (see Opinions 19-29; 17-155; 17-148), nor compromise the judge’s actual or apparent impartiality (see Opinions 24-84; 17-155).  Indeed, we said a judge addressing a civilian complaint review board on “the law of search and seizure and arrest procedures” should “take particular care” if asked to comment on police-citizen encounters and relations, and “strive to avoid unnecessary speculation about possible attitudes, behaviors, or motivations of either the police or citizens, which could undermine the judge’s appearance of impartiality” (Opinion 13-140).

          Here, we conclude that it is ethically permissible for the inquiring judge to participate in a “Know Your Immigration Rights” webinar co-sponsored by bar associations and city council members, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct, including the public comment rule (see Opinion 17-155).  Since the program format allows attendees to ask questions, we caution the judge to refrain from providing legal advice either as part of the judge’s presentation or in the course of answering questions from attendees (see id.).  Given that the webinar is co-sponsored by city council members and pertains to “recent developments affecting the immigrant community,” we also remind the judge not to comment on highly controversial or political matters (cf. Opinions 22-170; 13-140; 10-133).