Should a candidate for Attorney General or District Attorney personally solicit campaign contributions or learn who donated?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee considered whether a candidate for New York State Attorney General, District Attorney, or a similar office closely tied to the judicial process should personally solicit campaign contributions or try to learn who donated. Reasoning that the work of an Attorney General or District Attorney, like that of a judge, involves daily decisions that directly affect lawyers and their clients, the committee extended its earlier Opinion 882 (1973), which urged judicial candidates to screen themselves from their contributors and to avoid learning donors' identities, to candidates for these prosecutorial and law-enforcement offices.
The committee concluded that such candidates and their family members should not personally solicit contributions but should establish committees to do so, and should, to the extent permitted by law, avoid learning the names of contributors and the amounts donated. It acknowledged that this shielding is not specifically required by the Code of Professional Responsibility, but found it consistent with the Code's principles, citing DR 8-101(A)(3) (a lawyer holding public office shall not accept anything of value offered to influence the lawyer's official action), DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and EC 7-34, together with Section 5C(2) of the New York Code of Judicial Conduct, under which judicial candidates use committees rather than soliciting personally.
The committee also addressed lawyers who contribute. Under DR 9-101(C), a lawyer may not state or imply an ability to influence a tribunal, legislative body, or public official improperly or on irrelevant grounds, so a lawyer donating to such a candidate may not represent, expressly or by implication, that the donation will yield favorable treatment, and should not contribute to influence a public official on a client's behalf. The committee observed that every legitimate reason for contributing is served by the contribution itself, without attribution.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Disciplinary Rules cited here) with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, effective April 1, 2009, and the judicial-conduct rules have since been renumbered and revised. Misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice are now addressed by Rule 8.4. 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 candidate for Attorney General or District Attorney personally ask for campaign donations?
A: The committee concluded such candidates, like judicial candidates, should not personally solicit contributions but should establish committees to do so.
Q: Should the candidate know who contributed?
A: The committee concluded the candidate should, to the extent permitted by law, avoid learning the names of contributors and the amounts of their donations, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Q: Why are these offices treated like judicial offices?
A: The committee reasoned that an Attorney General's or District Attorney's work, like a judge's, involves daily decisions that directly affect lawyers and their clients, so the policy of its judicial-candidate Opinion 882 applies equally.
Q: Can a lawyer donate to one of these candidates?
A: The committee concluded a lawyer may donate but, under DR 9-101(C), may not state or imply that the contribution buys favorable treatment, and should not contribute to influence a public official on a client's behalf.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied New York Code DR 8-101(A)(3) (a lawyer in public office accepting value to influence official action), DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 9-101(C) (implying improper influence over officials), and EC 7-34, read together with Section 5C(2) of the New York Code of Judicial Conduct on judicial-candidate fundraising. The analysis corresponds most closely to ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct, including conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York Code DR 1-102(A)(5), DR 8-101(A)(3), DR 9-101(C); EC 7-34; Code of Judicial Conduct Section 5C(2) (applied in the opinion)
- MR 8.4 (misconduct)
Other opinions cited:
- NYC Bar Opinion 882 (1973) (released as N.Y. State 289): judicial candidates should screen themselves from contributors
- N.Y. City Board of Ethics Opinion No. 35 (1961): solicitation by an official from those with matters before the agency is improper
See also
- NYC Bar Formal Op. 1994-2: Part-Time Administrative Law Judge and a Referral Fee
- No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1994 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.