The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued Opinion 26-09, clarifying that judges may provide input to a statewide association of pre-trial service agencies tasked with developing and delivering training for judges on pre-trial practice. This opinion addresses a query from a town justice seeking guidance on contributing to training programs designed to enhance the practical relevance and usefulness of pre-trial services for the judiciary.
The statewide association, commissioned by the Office of Court Administration, aims to create training programs that offer judges valuable insights into pre-trial services from a judicial perspective. The association’s stated mission includes facilitating collaboration between pre-trial service providers and government entities, establishing standards for pre-trial services in New York, developing educational materials, and informing policymakers about services that promote pre-trial justice. Key partners of the association include the Office of Court Administration, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, and the New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
Opinion 26-09 emphasizes that judges must consistently uphold the appearance of propriety and promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, as mandated by judicial ethics rules. Judges are permitted to engage in teaching activities and are required to maintain professional competence. Their extra-judicial activities must be compatible with their judicial office and should not cast doubt on their impartiality, detract from the dignity of their office, or interfere with their judicial duties. Furthermore, judges are prohibited from commenting on pending or impending proceedings and must avoid impermissible ex parte communications.
The committee highlighted that ethics rules broadly permit judges to participate in efforts to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, viewing such participation as encouraged. This aligns with previous advisories recognizing that judges may take steps to further judicial education, consistent with judicial independence and impartiality.
The opinion draws parallels to previous guidance, such as allowing a full-time judge to assist a not-for-profit organization in developing a training program on domestic violence situations, provided the program does not compromise judicial impartiality. Similarly, a judge may discuss their role and experience with transparency in the justice system at a forum, subject to applicable limitations.
In conclusion, the committee found it permissible for the inquiring judge to offer input to the statewide association. This is particularly relevant given the goal of making the training “practical, relevant, and genuinely useful” for judges. When providing such input, judges must adhere to general limitations on judicial speech and conduct, ensuring their statements do not indicate a predisposition in deciding cases or otherwise undermine public confidence in their impartiality and independence.
