The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion stating that a judge may mentor an individual who appeared before them nine years prior, provided certain conditions are met. The opinion, designated 25-149, addresses a judge’s inquiry about whether they could mentor a former criminal defendant who had requested guidance on educational and career matters.
The defendant in question appeared before the judge nine years ago after the case was transferred for allocution following a plea negotiation. The charges were reduced to a violation and various traffic infractions, and the judge imposed a sentence that included a conditional discharge, fines, surcharges, and community service, all of which have been fully satisfied. The judge confirmed that the former defendant has had no further involvement with the criminal justice system and that the mentorship request was made independently.
The Committee referenced previous opinions, acknowledging the benefit of judges participating in community affairs, including mentorship roles, as long as such activities do not create an appearance of impropriety or involve the judge in impermissible actions. The Committee noted examples where judges were permitted to mentor applicants to military service academies, foster youth, and high school students through various programs. The Committee also cited an opinion where a judge was allowed to mentor formerly incarcerated individuals, with the stipulation that the judge not interact with law enforcement or the courts on the participant’s behalf or provide employment recommendations.
The Committee distinguished the current scenario from a previous opinion where a judge was advised against mentoring a teenager who had recently appeared before them in a truancy proceeding. In that instance, the Committee found that the mentoring relationship would create an appearance of impropriety and interfere with the judge’s judicial duties.
In the present case, the Committee emphasized that the defendant’s appearance before the judge was a single occurrence nine years ago, and all terms of the sentence have been satisfied. Furthermore, the prior case did not involve matters that would directly suggest a need for mentorship, and the proposed mentoring relationship would focus on educational and career advice unrelated to the prior criminal case.
Therefore, the Committee concluded that the judge may mentor the former defendant on educational and career matters, subject to general limitations on judicial speech and conduct.
