A judicial officer may not hold herself out to third parties as a family member’s lawyer or appear as the family member’s advocate before any tribunal, which includes courts of record, city and town courts, administrative law boards and commissions, and arbitrators. A judicial officer may attend a court or administrative hearing with a family member in a supportive role, not as a legal advocate. When attending a hearing, a judicial officer may not refer to their judicial status and must make efforts to keep others from referring to them as “judge” (or “magistrate,” “commissioner,” or “referee”) while in the courtroom or its environs immediately prior to and during the hearing; must not wear any court-related clothing (for example, a judicial robe or casual shirt with the court logo); and must not interact with others in the courtroom and in areas immediately adjacent to it in a manner that conveys that the judicial officer has special influence or the status of a “court insider,” such as visiting the presiding judge’s chambers prior to or immediately after the hearing, socializing with court staff in the courtroom or court offices, or interacting informally with prosecutorial or investigative staff. Prior to attending a hearing, a judicial officer should carefully evaluate whether they can maintain composure during the hearing. Indiana Opinion 2-2020.
A judge may not have a “Christmas at the courthouse” event but may invite the public to learn how the court operates and tour the courthouse at a “holiday” event if there will be no alcoholic beverages, may use the judge’s own resources to purchase gifts for the children, and may have a local personality portray Santa. New Mexico Opinion 2019-4 .
A judge may not adopt a general policy of declining to perform weddings that involve a minor under 18 but may decline to perform a specific wedding if the judge, upon inquiry, has a valid basis to believe that the wedding would be illegal or would serve an illegal purpose. New Mexico Opinion 2019-5.
A judge may not mail congratulatory letters on court stationery to a graduating high school class. New York Opinion 2020-89.
A magistrate court judge may serve as the state judicial outreach liaison with the American Bar Association regarding impaired driving and other traffic issues. South Carolina Opinion 8-2020.
A judge may serve on the advisory board of a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of an historic theater. New York Opinion 2020-81(A).
A judge may join a not-for-profit organization’s board to review scholarship applications and award scholarships to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigrants. New York Opinion 2020-81(A).
A judge may use her judicial title in internal bar association communications as a bar association committee chair. New York Opinion 2020-81(A).
A judge may participate in charity walks in a personal capacity regardless whether he is running for election or re-election, but information about his participation may not be posted on his campaign website or on the charity’s website. Maryland Opinion Request 2020-14.
A judge who is enrolled in a Ph.D. program in theology may participate in a debate with other theologians even if the host church will have a “love offering” to raise funds for compassion and mission work to poor ministries and people in Asia as long as the judge does not personally ask for or collect the funds and does not remain on the stage during the offering. South Carolina Opinion 10-2020.
A judge may be enrolled in a political party, but may not otherwise be a member of a political organization. New York Opinion 2020-81(A).
A judge whose spouse is a candidate for elective public office may not await primary results at an election night event sponsored by a political organization or her spouse’s campaign committee but may attend an event sponsored and personally paid for by her spouse and unrelated to a political party or campaign committee. New York Opinion 2020-87.
When multiple, high-profile, racially-charged incidents of police violence have resulted in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation and intense local and national controversy, a judge may not participate in a county executive’s initiative to promote trust and dialogue between activists and police about those incidents and/or recommend changes to current police force deployments, strategies, policies, procedures, and practices. New York Opinion 2020-112.