Opinion 13-116

September 12, 2013

Digest:         A Housing Court judge may speak at a meeting of a property owners’ organization about court procedures in landlord-tenant matters but must not discuss pending or impending cases; must not provide trial strategy or legal advice; and must otherwise ensure that his/her presentation does not compromise his/her apparent or actual impartiality and does not manifest a predisposition to decide a particular type or class of case a certain way. Before accepting this particular speaking engagement, the judge should also carefully consider whether he/she would also be willing, schedule permitting, to provide a similar lecture to a tenants’ organization on request.

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 12-44; 93-82 (Vol. XI).

Opinion:

         A Housing Court judge asks whether he/she may accept an invitation to attend a meeting of an organization of property owners and speak about (1) procedures for owners and tenants when they go before judges; (2) how long it takes for a case to go to trial; (3) how long it takes to get a decision; (4) how an order to show cause is obtained and signed; and (5) procedures for having rent deposited into court. The judge states that other speakers at the program will include a landlord’s attorney and a city marshal.

         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 may engage in extra-judicial activities, including teaching and lecturing, as long as doing so does 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 and is not incompatible with judicial office (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A] [1]-[3]; 100.4[B]). A judge also must not make any public comment about 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]); must not engage in impermissible ex parte communications (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6]); and, if a full-time judge, must not provide legal advice other than uncompensated legal advice to a family member(see 22 NYCRR 100.4[G]).

         The Committee has advised that when a judge’s intended audience is not a “general” or “balanced” audience but, instead, comprises only one “side,” the judge must take particular care that his/her topic will not compromise the judge’s apparent or actual impartiality and does not manifest a predisposition to decide a particular type or class of case a certain way (see Opinion 12-44). Subject to similar limitations, the Committee has previously advised that a judge may speak to an organization of real estate managers concerning court operations of the landlord-tenants parts in that judge’s court (see Opinion 93-82 [Vol. XI]).

         The Committee believes it is possible to speak on the topics listed in the present inquiry in a neutral manner within the meaning of Opinion 12-44, as they are largely procedural in nature. However, to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety, before accepting this speaking engagement on landlord/tenant matters at an organization of property owners, the judge should first carefully consider whether he/she would also be willing, schedule permitting, to provide a similar lecture to a tenants’ organization on request.

         Throughout the presentation, and particularly if the judge participates in a question-and-answer session, the judge must be careful not to comment on pending or impending cases (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]; cf. 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6] [judge must not engage in impermissible ex parte communications]); must avoid providing trial strategy or legal advice; and must otherwise ensure that his/her presentation does not compromise the judge’s apparent or actual impartiality and does not manifest a predisposition to decide a particular type or class of case a certain way (see Opinion 12-44; 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]; 100.3[B][9]; 100.4[G]).