Opinion 26-42

March 26, 2026

Digest:  A judge may visit his/her neighbor who has been convicted and is incarcerated, provided he/she does not reference or invoke his/her judicial title or status.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.3(B)(6); Opinions 13-165; 13-113; 10-197; 09-46.

Opinion:

          A part-time non-lawyer judge asks if he/she may visit his/her neighbor who has been convicted and is presently incarcerated.  The judge explains that the visit would be in the capacity of a neighbor, and not as a legal advisor.  The judge has a professional relationship with certain officials at the jail, who are aware of his/her judicial status.

          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]).  Therefore, among other limitations, a judge must not engage in impermissible ex parte communications (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6]) and must not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

          We have previously advised that a judge may accompany his/her friend to court proceedings, provided the judge does not refer to or invoke his/her judicial office or otherwise lend the prestige of the judicial office for the friend’s benefit (see e.g. Opinions 10-197 [permitting judge to accompany friend to divorce court appearances, as long as judge does not draw attention to judicial status]; 13-113 [setting conditions under which judge may accompany close friend to small claims proceeding]).  As we explained in Opinion 13-113, “the judge’s mere presence in court … to observe proceedings in which a friend … is a party, would not give rise to an appearance of impropriety, and would not impermissibly lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others” (id.).

          With respect to jail visits, we have said a judge may visit a third-degree relative in jail, provided the judge “does not have any ex parte contact with the judge presiding in the matter and does not invoke his/her judicial office or otherwise lend the prestige of his/her judicial office for his/her relative’s benefit” (Opinion 09-46).

          Here, the judge’s relationship with the convicted defendant is apparently social and neighborly.  We see no ethical impropriety in this non-lawyer judge visiting an incarcerated neighbor, either pre- or post-sentencing, strictly as a private citizen.  We note the judge must not provide legal advice; must not interject him/herself into the proceedings, including through ex parte contact with the sentencing judge or by reaching out to the attorneys or probation department; and must not invoke his/her judicial office or otherwise lend judicial prestige for his/her neighbor’s benefit.

          Provided the judge does not allude to his/her judicial status, the judge’s visit is not rendered improper merely because jail officials are aware of such status (cf. Opinion 13-165 fn 2 [“The conduct permitted by this opinion is not rendered suspect merely because a potential customer manifests an awareness that the inquirer is a judge.”]).