Opinion 25-137

November 6, 2025

Digest:  A full-time judge 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.

Rules:  22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(4); 100.3(B)(6); 100.3(B)(8)-(9); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(B); 100.4(G); Opinions 25-35; 23-237; 22-191; 17-155; 17-148; 14-35; 13-140; 12-49; 10-102; 95-34.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge has been invited to participate in a panel at the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (“DCJS”) Professional Responsibilities in Forensics forum.  The judge would address the judge’s “role and experience with communicating between offices, agencies, and individuals, explaining the importance of communicating efficiently and being transparent.”  The overall program includes lectures by current and former prosecutors, a legal justice center director, the head of DCJS’s youth justice criminal justice program planning, forensics experts from a private lab, the county police services forensic lab, and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.  The judge asks if he/she may accept the invitation.

          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 generally speak, lecture, and teach (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[B]), but must ensure that his/her extra-judicial activities are compatible with judicial office and do not (1) cast reasonable doubt on his/her 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 also must not publicly comment on a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]); express a bias or predisposition with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before him/her (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][4]; 100.3[B][9]); engage in impermissible ex parte communications (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6]); or, if a full-time judge, provide legal advice (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[G]).

          In general, a judge may lecture and teach on matters relating to the law and the administration of justice, unless a specific prohibition applies (see Opinions 17-155; 13-140).  For example, a judge may participate in a community “Know Your Immigration Rights” webinar co-sponsored by local bar associations (see Opinion 25-35); may lecture non-lawyer union members on general legal topics at a union event (see Opinion 17-148); may speak about the Bill of Rights at a public school teachers’ conference (see Opinion 14-35); may preside over a mock video arraignment for educational purposes during a county executive’s state of the county speech (see Opinion 12-49); and may appear on a local television news broadcast to answer questions about a predetermined topic relating to the criminal justice system (see Opinion 10-102).

          We have recognized that “balanced membership helps ensure that the judge’s participation will not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s impartiality” (Opinion 23-237).  Thus, we 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).  Indeed, we said the judge may participate in presenting the training, provided the panels on which the judge serves are “balanced” and the judge abides by generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct, including the public comment rule (see id.).

          Here, the panel is informational and educational and relates to the law and the administration of justice.  The program is balanced, featuring speakers from prosecution, defense, forensic science, and justice administration.  The judge is not being asked to advocate for a particular position or policy, but rather to share insights on communication and transparency—topics that are broadly applicable and unlikely to compromise impartiality. Accordingly, the inquiring judge may participate in the proposed panel at the DCJS’s Professional Responsibilities in Forensics forum, and discuss his/her role and experience with communication and transparency in the justice system.  As always, the judge must be mindful of generally applicable limitations on judicial speech, including the public comment rule, both during the panel discussion and in any informal interactions with attendees.