Opinion 26-49

March 26, 2026

Digest:  A judge may subscribe to and use a ride-hailing service pending the outcome of litigation between the company and a licensing agency.  The judge must discontinue use of the service if the judge learns that the company is ordered to cease operations.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A).

Opinion:

          The inquiring full-time judge subscribes to and uses a particular ride-hailing application.  The judge has become aware of ongoing litigation between the ride-hailing company and a local licensing agency “regarding [its] legality.”  The judge has no financial stake in the litigation itself nor any legal interest in its outcome other than as a consumer, and further advises there is no chance he/she could be assigned to preside over the litigation.  On these facts, the judge asks if it is ethically permissible to continue using the service.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2).  A judge must also “respect and comply with the law” and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).

          We note initially that the extra-judicial activity described by the judge is solely as an ordinary consumer of transportation services offered to the general public.  On these facts, we see no ethical impediment to the inquiring judge’s continued use of the ride-hailing service while the litigation remains undecided.  However, the judge must discontinue use of the service if the judge learns that the company is ordered to cease operations.