Opinion 26-84
May 7, 2026
Digest: A judge may not participate in an academic research project exploring how judges respond to a case summary, where the judge is unable to determine whether the case summary involves a pending or impending proceeding in a court within the United States or its territories.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.3(B)(11); 100.4(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); Opinions 23-205; 23-148; 18-134; 11-138; 10-187; 10-131; 10-115; 07-188; 99-44; 97-56.
Opinion:
The inquiring judge asks if he/she may participate in a university-sponsored research project on “how judges make decisions determining financial compensation” in civil cases brought by exonerated defendants. Study participants will read “a case summary” and then answer “survey questions about [their] thoughts and opinions on what [they] read.” The judge has been advised that responses will be confidential, the participants will not be identified, and any summary report will present only aggregated data. However, the judge does not know, and has been unable to ascertain, whether the case summary involves a pending or impending case.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). 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 the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). A judge may not make any public comment on a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]).
We have recognized that the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct “encourage judges to become involved in extra-judicial activities that concern [the improvement of] the law, the legal system and the administration of justice” (Opinion 07-188). For example, “[a] judge who presides in civil matters may participate in a university-sponsored educational program at a correctional facility in another region of the state” (Opinion 23-148). Moreover, “[a] judge may participate in an interview with a graduate student in connection with the student’s dissertation research on a particular legal issue, and answer questions about the judge’s judicial experience with a form of court-ordered treatment” (Opinion 11-138); may serve as a consultant to an academic research project on jurors’ memories (see Opinion 10-115); “may serve as consultant to a non-profit organization, specializing in educating people with addiction issues, for the sole purpose of reviewing and making recommendations about the organization’s programs and policies” (Opinion 10-187); and may participate in “a non-profit foundation's research program on adolescent development and juvenile justice” (Opinion 97-56).
A judge’s participation in an academic study is subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct, including prohibitions on commenting on pending or impending cases, disclosure of non-public information acquired in a judicial capacity, and expressing a predisposition to decide matters in a certain way (see e.g. 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]; 100.3[B][8]; 100.3[B][11]; 100.4[A][1]; Opinions 10-131; 99-44). Of particular note here are the limitations when a judge’s proposed extra-judicial activities involve pending or impending cases (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]). For example, we have advised that “[a] judge may not participate in an interview with a former juror who wishes to write a book about a case over which the judge presided, where related proceedings remain pending or impending” (Opinion 18-134); and may not participate as a panelist in a continuing legal education program “about a recently settled civil action in which the judge presided, together with attorneys who appeared in the case,” unless, among other things, the time for appeals has expired (Opinion 23-205).
Here, the inquiring judge does not know and has been unable to ascertain whether the case summary in the survey involves a specific pending or impending proceeding in a court within the United States or its territories. Nor has the judge received any assurances on this subject from those involved in the research project.
Thus, since the inquiring judge has been unable to determine that the case summary does not involve a pending or impending court proceeding, we conclude the judge must not participate in the survey. In light of this conclusion, we need not reach the judge’s additional question about compensation.