Can a New York judge belong to a bar association that funds a political action committee and gives it free office space, staff, insurance, and use of its dues statement to solicit contributions?

Plain-English summary

A local bar association proposed to create a political action committee funded by voluntary member contributions to support candidates for public (but not judicial) office. The association intended to give the PAC free office space, administrative and clerical services, coverage under its directors' and officers' liability policy, and use of the association's annual dues statement to solicit contributions. Judges who were association members would not be solicited and would not contribute. The committee was asked whether a judge could remain a member of such an association.

The committee first noted the limits of its own jurisdiction: it interprets the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and it does not opine on the Election Law, the tax consequences, or the Judicial Conduct Rules of the Chief Administrator. It confirmed that a judge may take part in activities to improve the law through a bar association (CJC Canon 4C), but that Canon 7A(1)(c) bars a judge or judicial candidate from contributing to a political organization or candidate, except as Canon 7A(2) allows insofar as permitted by law.

Treating a PAC as a "political organization" within Canon 7A(1)(c), the committee reasoned that the association's free services (office space, staff, the dues-statement solicitation, and insurance coverage) each had a definite monetary value and so amounted to a contribution by the association to the PAC. It then held that the association's contribution is an indirect contribution by the judges who are members, which Canon 7 prohibits, because Canon 7B(1)(b) says a judge should not let another person do what the judge may not do. The committee added that lending the association's prestige to the PAC's appeals would itself be a valuable contribution, citing Canon 5B(2). It noted the answer would be different if the association charged the PAC fair value for its services and did not use its own dues statement to solicit. The question was answered in the negative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, under New York's former Code of Professional Responsibility and the then-current Code of Judicial Conduct. New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009, and judicial political activity is now governed by the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a New York judge belong to a bar association that runs a political action committee?

A: Not where the association gives the PAC free services. The committee held that free office space, staff, insurance, and use of the dues statement to solicit contributions are a contribution by the association to a political organization, and that contribution is imputed to the association's judicial members in violation of Canon 7.

Q: What would make membership permissible?

A: The committee said the answer would be different if the association charged the PAC fair value for the space, staff, mailing services, and insurance, and did not use its own dues statement to solicit for the PAC. In that case no funds of judicial members would be deemed contributed to a political organization.

Q: Does this opinion decide whether the PAC arrangement is legal under the Election Law?

A: No. The committee expressly declined to opine on the legality of the political expenditures, the tax-exempt status question, or the Judicial Conduct Rules, all of which it said were beyond its jurisdiction.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted the Code of Judicial Conduct as applied to judges and, through DR 8-103(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to lawyers who are candidates for judicial office. The operative provisions were Canon 4C (a judge's permitted law-improvement activity), Canon 7A(1)(c) and 7A(2) (the bar on contributing to a political organization), Canon 7B(1)(b) (a judge may not let another do what the judge may not), and Canon 5B(2) (use of the prestige of office for fundraising). Under the current Model Rules, a lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office is directed to the applicable judicial conduct rules by Rule 8.2(b).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 8.2(b) (lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office must comply with the applicable Code of Judicial Conduct)
• NY DR 8-103(A); CJC Canon 4C; Canon 5B(2); Canon 7A(1)(c), 7A(2); Canon 7B(1)(b)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Opinion 1350 (1975); ABA Informal Opinion 1400 (1977): a judge may not contribute to candidates other than the judge, and bodies such as political caucuses are "political organizations"

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 586: Judicial candidate and judge political contributions
• NY State Bar Op. 612: A judge's campaign use of the "judge" or "justice" title
• NY State Bar Op. 1071: Partisan political activity by a police oversight lawyer

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-585/