Opinion 12-126
November 2, 2012
Please Note:
See AO-347 concerning the status of Section 100.4(H)(2).
Dear: This responds to your inquiry (12-126) asking whether there is a “proper basis”
for you to address a college class at your alma mater on a topical, controversial issue
which is the subject of a recent trial court decision you authored and is currently on
appeal. The public policy course at this private institution will use the current
debate on this issue as a case study. While judges are prohibited from making public comments about pending or
impending cases in any court within the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR
100.3[B][8]), judges are permitted to speak, write, lecture and teach (see 22 NYCRR
100.4[B]). The Committee has previously commented that engaging students in
discussions about current events “can in no way negatively impact the criminal
justice system” (Opinion 95-105). However, “judges should refrain from making
gratuitous and unnecessar[y], controversial statements about pending cases[], and
they should avoid any discussion of cases pending within the general jurisdictional
locale of [their] ... court” (id.). Accordingly, you may discuss the role of the courts vis a vis the legislative and
executive branches as well as any cases relevant to the issue the students are
studying, provided you do not discuss any cases over which you presided or any cases
pending in the jurisdiction in which you preside. Regarding your further inquiry about the propriety of accepting travel expenses
or an honorarium, reasonable compensation is permissible subject to the limitations
and reporting requirements set forth in 22 NYCRR 100.4(H)(1) and (2). Enclosed for your convenience are Opinions 10-187; 01-03 and 95-105 which
address this issue. Very truly yours, George D. Marlow, Assoc. Justice (Ret.) Appellate Division, First Dep’t Committee Chair Encls.