Not to put too fine a point on it, but *technically* I didn't say she worked "for" them, but "with" them, which is exactly what I meant and certainly includes the details you added.

My point was that even to the lay person, that smacks of impropriety.

And the old judicial canon, which has been formally codified into the ethical rules in each state, provides that a judge should avoid "even the appearance of impropriety."

Certainly minds can differ, but it's hard to imagine how to reconcile that, unless, of course, the firm bio is misleading and she never personally worked with the foundation, just other members of the firm. Still not ideal -- you want a judge to be squeaky clean and above reproach -- but at least it's outside the umbrella.