Opinion 23-19

February 2, 2023

Digest:       (1) On the facts presented, a town justice may acquiesce in the town supervisor’s proposed changing of locks to the court offices, pursuant to a town resolution and town policy.

(2) If, as events unfold, the judge finds that the town supervisor abuses their access to court areas, otherwise interferes with court operations, or undermines judicial independence, the judge should report any such actions to an appropriate supervising or administrative judge.

Rules:        22 NYCRR 100.0(S); 100.1; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(1); Opinions 22-62; 21-183; 17-159.

Opinion:

         The inquiring town justice is concerned about certain actions proposed or undertaken by the local municipality. A town resolution states that the town board “authorizes the changing of the locks to the Court Offices and the small conference room” so that the town supervisor will hold keys for all town offices and building spaces, but that “the Court shall be given an opportunity to request equipment to secure confidential files.”¹ The town supervisor has now announced plans to change the locks on a specific date, and the town justice asks what their ethical obligations are in this circumstance.

         A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must uphold the judiciary’s integrity, impartiality, and independence (see 22 NYCRR 100.1; 100.2[A]; 100.0[S] [“An ‘independent’ judiciary is one free of outside influences or control.”]). A judge also must “respect and comply with the law” (22 NYCRR 100.2[A]) and “be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][1]).

         Initially, we note that we cannot comment on the legality of the town resolution or its policy that the town supervisor should have keys to “all town offices and building spaces.” Nor can we resolve any dispute about how to reconcile the resolution and/or policy at issue with other laws that could potentially be inconsistent with it (if any). Accordingly, we focus solely on the judge’s ethical obligations going forward, i.e. whether the judge has an ethical duty to object to the proposed changing of the locks pursuant to a town resolution and town policy.

         Assuming for the sake of this opinion that the town resolution and town policy are lawful, we note that, on its face, the resolution appears to provide for maintaining confidentiality of court records by allowing the judge to “request equipment to secure confidential files.” Nor does the resolution suggest that the town supervisor plans to access the court offices or conference room in an inappropriate way or for an improper purpose (e.g. to monitor or comment on the work of the judge or any court clerks), or to exclude the judge and/or court personnel from the area.

         Bearing in mind that judicial independence must coexist with the municipality’s role in funding and staffing the justice courts, we conclude this judge may acquiesce in the proposed changing of locks, “to the extent that it does not impact court operations” (Opinion 22-62 [judge may cooperate in a court efficiency study ordered by the local municipality]; accord e.g. Opinions 21-183 [village justice may consent to the village’s proposed requirement that the village court clerk punch in on a time clock, as other village employees do]; 17-159 [town justice may respond to the town’s fraud risk questionnaire about the financial and anti-fraud controls in the town court]).

         Of course, the judge may not acquiesce to municipal actions that are likely to interfere with court operations or that will compromise the independence of the judiciary (see Opinion 22-62). While we see no indication, on the facts presented, that the lock change is likely to interfere with court operations or undermine judicial independence, we note that the inquiring judge will be best situated to assess the situation going forward (cf. Opinion 21-183). If the judge finds that the town supervisor abuses their access to court areas or otherwise interferes with court operations and/or undermines judicial independence, the judge should report any such actions to an appropriate supervising or administrative judge (see generally Opinions 22-62; 21-183).

_______________________________

¹ This apparently refers to locking file cabinets.