Opinion 26-58
May 7, 2026
Digest: A judge may participate in a program to train judges on the courtroom use of a law enforcement tool for risk assessment in domestic violence cases, provided that all stakeholders are invited to participate on an equal basis together with the judges.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(A); 100.3(B)(1); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); Opinions 25-110; 18-41; 17-04; 15-99; 14-11; 08-21; 04-20; 94-31; 87-28(a).
Opinion:
The inquiring judge asks if he/she may attend a training on the use of Danger Assessment for Law Enforcement (DA-LE), an “evidence-based” tool for “lethality assessment” when police or others are responding to domestic violence calls. The program is funded by a grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services as part of a broader effort to reduce intimate partner homicide,[1] and is being sponsored and presented by a national not-for-profit organization that seeks to reduce domestic violence. The sponsor/presenter, which developed the DA-LE tool, considers “law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and community-based advocates” to be “the primary users of the tool,” and says its training “is designed to ensure consistent administration of the assessment, appropriate interpretation of the results, and effective safety planning and case handling.”
According to the inquiry, the proposed training for judges “is intended to be independent of the practitioners before them.” The prosecution and defense bar have been offered separate training sessions, and at least one training session has already been held for prosecutors. The sponsor/presenter asserts that “the content is very similar” in these separate programs, “but it is slightly nuanced for each profession.”
The specific training proposed for judges is intended to provide judicial officers with knowledge of “national/local intimate partner homicide statistics, [local] DA-LE project history, risk factors associated with lethal or near-lethal domestic violence,” as well as information on the “predictive validity” of the tool and “[r]ecommendations for the judiciary on ways the DA-LE can be used in pre-trial decision-making processes.” After completing the training, judges will have an understanding of the risk assessment tool and “how the DA-LE can be used in a court setting.”
A judge must 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’s judicial duties “take precedence” over all his/her other activities (22 NYCRR 100.3[A]), and therefore a judge must not engage in extra-judicial activities that “cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge” (22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]) or “interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties” (22 NYCRR 100.4[A][3]). A judge must “be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][1]).
In applying these rules, we have advised that judges must not attend training sessions sponsored by a law enforcement agency if the purpose is “to maximize enforcement” (Opinion 94-31). As we explained (id.):
The training program’s purpose and agenda are clearly planned to enhance the conviction rate of people accused of alcohol and drug-related vehicle and traffic crimes. While that is or may be a laudable, overall societal goal, it is not one which the Judiciary shares as part of its constitutional mandate. The Judiciary exists to assure fairness and impartiality to all those accused of crime, and to protect their legal rights. To participate in the proposed educational enterprise would at least appear to place that mission at risk.
Judges, of course, should be encouraged to attend seminars, but only ones whose agendas are not born of strictly partisan concerns.
Thus, for example, a judge may not attend a three-day human trafficking seminar sponsored by federal prosecutorial and law enforcement agencies, where the program will focus primarily on strategies for effective prosecution (Opinion 17-04). Likewise, we said a judge may not observe law enforcement training on how to process a DWI arrest at the state police headquarters, as “it would be difficult to avoid the public perception that a law enforcement agency was being allowed to educate the judiciary on the ‘proper way’ to conduct such arrests” (Opinion 15-99). A judge may not attend a conference by the Division of Criminal Justice Services entitled “The Path to Prosecution,” dealing with domestic violence and sexual assault cases in the judge’s county, where “the focus of the conference is geared to aiding in the successful prosecution of various crimes” and “there is no representative of the defense bar present” (Opinion 04-20). Indeed, immersion in “a partisan presentation with respect to the treatment to be accorded to a specific category of cases” could, under these circumstances, create an appearance that the judge has been “exposed to partisan conditioning by way of an ‘educational seminar’” (Opinion 87-28[a]). While the determination is necessarily fact-specific, such scenarios raise a concern that “an appearance of alignment with prosecutorial and/or law enforcement interests” may “erode public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality” (Opinion 17-04 [citation omitted]).
Opinion 18-41 is also instructive in this regard, as we advised that a judge may not attend a training program sponsored by the county Ignition Interlock Monitor, where the program addressed post-conviction sentencing compliance enforcement, the faculty excluded defense perspectives, and the defense bar was not invited to attend. We concluded that “the absence of defense representatives on the faculty and in the audience further underscores and exacerbates the one-sided nature of the program” (id.). After Opinion 18-41 was decided, the organizers invited the Public Defender to serve as faculty. We then formally amended the opinion to recognize that this ethically significant development changed the result: “In our view, the Public Defender’s participation here will help ensure balance and minimize the risk that the program will be seen as a one-sided, law enforcement program. Accordingly, judges and their court clerks may attend.”
In a similar vein, we have advised that members of a county magistrates’ association may attend an educational program sponsored by the county probation department about implementing post-conviction polygraph testing for convicted sex offenders, only if the program (1) is not intended solely to promote law enforcement goals and (2) is open generally to the defense bar as well as law enforcement officials (see Opinion 08-21). We have also said a supervising judge may further judicial education by inviting prosecutors and institutional defense counsel to train judges on the structure and operation of their respective agencies, “provided the program as a whole is balanced and impartial” (Opinion 25-110).
Here, the program is funded by a grant to law enforcement, and the training will focus on how this law enforcement lethality assessment tool can be used “in a courtroom setting” and even specifically “in pre-trial decision-making processes.” Moreover, the proposal is to train the judges separately from the prosecution and the defense bar, which could raise questions among the defense bar and the public about what the judges are being told and potentially create an appearance of impropriety or favoritism (see e.g. Opinions 17-04; 15-99; 87-28[a]; cf. Opinion 14-11 [noting “the constitutional dimensions of a judge’s duties” in criminal cases]). We are also mindful that the sponsor/presenter originally planned to provide training only to prosecutors and judges, and even now claims merely that the content will be “very similar” in the three separate proposed programs. In our view, for this training to be ethically permissible for judges, all stakeholders must be invited to participate on an equal basis together with the judges even if, as in the case of the prosecutors, they may have already taken the training.[2]
Thus, we conclude that the inquiring judge may participate in the training program, provided that all stakeholders are invited to participate on an equal basis together with the judges.
Finally, we note that while there must be balance as to the invited attendees, the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct do not require the faculty to be balanced for this particular program, as the presenters are the creators of the risk assessment tool who will explain how the tool works.
[1] The Statewide Targeted Reductions in Intimate Partner Violence (STRIVE) grants are apparently tied to implementation of a domestic violence high-risk team model, lethality assessment program, and/or intimate partner violence interventions.
[2] By way of example, and without attempting to dictate the format of the program, if the training is offered as a live virtual session for the judges with an opportunity to ask questions of the presenters in real time, then prosecutors and defense bar must be invited to attend the same live virtual session with the same opportunity to ask questions.