The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the ethical considerations for a Family Court judge who wishes to proactively review the court’s case management database for existing orders of protection concerning litigants appearing before them. The opinion, designated 25-80, clarifies the circumstances under which such reviews are permissible and the extent to which the information obtained should be disclosed.
The inquiring judge sought guidance on whether it was ethically acceptable to independently search the database to ascertain if individuals involved in pending cases were subject to active orders of protection. The judge intended to use this information to inform their decision-making process and further stated they would disclose any findings to all parties and their legal representatives, providing them with an opportunity to address the information before any rulings were made.
The Committee emphasized that judges must maintain impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary, avoiding any appearance of impropriety. While judges should not act as investigators, they are not required to ignore information acquired through their official duties. The opinion references prior guidance allowing judges to contact other courts for relevant public record information or to obtain records of pending charges against a defendant if such charges might influence a bail decision.
Drawing parallels to previous opinions that permitted judges to review a defendant’s driving history before accepting a plea agreement, the Committee found no ethical barrier to the judge’s proposed review of existing orders of protection. The Committee noted that such examinations of relevant documentation are permissible when legally authorized.
The Committee concluded that a judge may review existing orders of protection within the court’s case management system to make informed decisions on pending matters. While the judge is permitted to disclose this information to the parties and their counsel, they are not ethically obligated to do so. The Committee reiterated that it cannot comment on any legal issues, as its purview is limited to ethical considerations for judges.
