Opinion 26-51

March 26, 2026

Digest:  A full-time judge may not serve as a “sounding board” on legal and ethical issues for a lawyer friend in another state.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.4(G); Opinions 19-121; 19-29; 14-80.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge asks if he/she may serve “as a sounding board” for a solo practitioner friend in another state on “ideas or issues” concerning the friend’s cases and ethical issues.  The judge characterizes the proposed conversations as “private[]” and says his/her name would “never come up in conversations or filings with the courts” of the other state, both because the conversations would be “informal” and also because “nobody in the [other state] would care who I am or what my opinion is on [that state’s] law.”

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A full-time judge may not engage in the practice of law (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[G]).

          The proscription against a full-time judge’s practice of law “is not limited to the geographic boundaries of New York State” (Opinion 19-121 [citation omitted]).  Nor is the prohibition “confined to appearances in court,” as it includes behind-the-scenes “advice and assistance” (Opinion 14-80 [citation omitted]).  Indeed, we have advised that a full-time judge may not provide individualized assistance and guidance to fellow congregants in completing their health care directives, as this “would, at the very least, create the appearance that the judge was impermissibly providing legal advice” (Opinion 19-29). 

          Accordingly, we conclude the inquiring judge may not serve as a sounding board on legal and ethical matters for an attorney friend, even if the friend practices in another state, the matters have no connection to New York, and the judge would not be publicly credited.