Opinion 26-09
February 5, 2026
Digest: A judge may provide input to a statewide association of pre-trial service agencies tasked by the Office of Court Administration with developing and delivering training for judges on pre-trial practice.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(1), (6), (8); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(B); Opinions 25-137; 25-110; 24-34; 22-191; 21-90; 20-42; 19-127; 12-64.
Opinion:
A town justice asks if he/she may provide input to a representative of a statewide association of pre-trial service agencies about the interaction between pre-trial services and the courts. The association has been asked by the Office of Court Administration “to develop and deliver a series of trainings for judges on pre-trial practice.” In an effort to make the programs “practical, relevant and genuinely useful from the bench’s perspective,” the representative seeks the inquiring judge’s input on “what information, clarification or discussion would be most valuable coming from pretrial services.” As stated on its website, the association “facilitate[s] collaboration” by providing both “a resource for pretrial service providers to come together and learn from each other” and “an opportunity for pretrial service agencies to work with New York state government to implement pretrial reforms”; establishes “standards for pretrial services in New York and help[s] agencies meet them”; prepares “educational materials for pretrial service agencies on best practices and the latest research”; and educates state policymakers “on what services are necessary to promote pretrial justice.” The association’s identified “partners” include the Office of Court Administration, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, and the New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge may engage in teaching activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[B]) and must “maintain professional competence” in the law (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][1]). A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). Of course, a judge must not make any public comment on a pending or impending proceeding in the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]) and must avoid impermissible ex parte communications (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6]).
The ethics rules “broadly permit” judges to participate in efforts to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, and we have said that “participation in such activities is to be encouraged” (Opinion 21-90). In a similar vein, we have recognized that judges may take steps consistent with judicial independence and impartiality to further their own or other judges’ judicial education (see e.g. Opinions 25-110; 24-34; 19-127; 12-64).
We have also advised that a full-time judge may assist a not-for-profit organization in developing a training program designed to educate medical professionals, first responders and others on assessing, evaluating and responding to domestic violence situations, provided the program and participants are not so imbalanced as to cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality (see Opinion 22-191). A judge also may discuss his/her role and experience with communication and transparency in the justice system at a Division of Criminal Justice Services Professional Responsibilities in Forensics forum, subject to generally applicable limitations both during the panel discussion and in any informal interactions with attendees (see Opinion 25-137).
Here, too, we conclude that it is permissible for the inquiring judge to provide input to the statewide association of pre-trial service agencies which has been asked by court administrators to develop and deliver judicial education programs. This is especially true where the goal is to make training topics more “practical, relevant, and genuinely useful” for judges.
In offering his/her input, the judge must abide by generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct. For example, the judge should be mindful that his/her statements and suggestions must not “manifest a predisposition in deciding issues or cases” (Opinion 22-191) nor “otherwise undermine public confidence in his/her impartiality and independence” (Opinion 20-42).