Opinion 25-80

May 15, 2025

Digest:  A judge may review existing orders of protection in order to make an informed decision concerning a matter that is pending before the judge, and may, in his/her discretion, disclose that information to the parties and their counsel.

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 212(2)(l); 22 NYCRR 100.0(S); 100.1; 100.2; 100.2(A); 101.1; Opinions 25-09; 21-145; 15-85; 09-96.

Opinion:

          A Family Court judge asks if it is ethically permissible to sua sponte look up litigants in the court’s case management database to determine if they are subject to existing orders of protection, with the express intent of informing the judge’s decision-making.  The judge states that he/she would disclose the results to all parties and counsel and afford them an opportunity to be heard before rendering a decision on any pending matters.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2), act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]) and uphold the judiciary’s independence (see 22 NYCRR 100.1; see also 22 NYCRR 100.0[S] [“An ‘independent’ judiciary is one free of outside influences or control”]).

          “While judges must avoid even the appearance of serving as investigators, advocates, prosecutors, or law enforcement, they need not turn a blind eye to information they have become aware of in their judicial capacity” (Opinion 21-145).  Thus, we have advised that a judge, who has learned “in the course of the judge’s official judicial duties” that another court may have relevant information pertaining to an ongoing matter before the judge, “may contact the other court and request [it] as information of public record” (id.).  We have also said a judge may contact another court and request a copy of charges pending against a defendant who is being arraigned before the judge, “if the judge has learned in the course of their official judicial duties that there are such charges pending in another court and the nature of such charges may bear on the judge’s bail decision” (Opinion 25-09).  

          Similarly, we have said a judge may review a defendant’s driving history before accepting or rejecting a proposed plea agreement (see Opinion 15-85).  From an ethical perspective, such sua sponte examination of relevant documentation to aid the judge in making an informed decision is permissible where legally authorized (see Opinion 09-96, citing CPL 510.30[2][a][i]-[viii] [defendant’s criminal record is one factor the court must consider when determining whether to set bail and the amount of such bail]).  We further advised that the judge “is not ethically required to disclose the contents of the driving history if he/she has reviewed the document under legally appropriate circumstances” (Opinion 15-85).

          Consistent with our prior opinions, we perceive no ethical impediment to the judge’s proposed sua sponte review of existing orders of protection in the court’s case management database to assist in his/her judicial decision-making.  As always, we cannot comment on any legal issues (see Judiciary Law § 212[2][l]; 22 NYCRR 101.1).

          Accordingly, we conclude the judge may review existing orders of protection in order to make an informed decision concerning a matter that is pending before the judge, and may, but is not obligated to, disclose that information to the parties and their counsel.