Opinion 24-142

September 12, 2024

Digest:  A town court may produce a year-end report about its activities and accomplishments, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct.  The report must be issued in the name of the entire court, rather than on behalf of any individual judge(s), and any discussion of recently decided cases, including the resolution of a longstanding local dispute, should be limited to a head-note style summary.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.1; 100.2; 100.2(A)-(C); 100.3(B)(8); Opinions 22-104; 19-63; 15-100; 13-86; 12-35; 07-185/08-68/08-77.

Opinion:

          A town justice asks if it is ethically permissible to circulate a report, “modeled … after the Annual Report of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals and the State of the Judiciary,” to update the public and any interested parties on the court’s progress over the year.  The report would cover the town court’s new initiatives and programs, projects to modernize records and expand public access to legal texts and assistance, and receipt of grants.  The report would also include “numerous written decisions” issued by the court over the past year and discuss “the resolution of an ancient local dispute that [had] percolated” for decades.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2), act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]), and preserve judicial independence (see 22 NYCRR 100.1).  A judge may not allow “political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment” (22 NYCRR 100.2[B]) and must not “convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).  A judge also must not “lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others” (id.).  A judge may not comment on “a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories,” but may make public statements in the course of their official duties and explain the court’s procedures for public information (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]).

          Although the present question appears to be a matter of first impression for us, we find guidance in two main lines of opinions.  First, we have advised that a town or village justice may “present a monthly status report to his/her town or village board at a public board meeting and distribute copies of such report to anyone who requests a copy, including the media” (Opinion 07-185/08-68/08-77; see also e.g. Opinion 22-104).  Indeed, we have even said a town justice “may publicly discuss the court’s operations, including a decrease or increase in revenue, at a town board meeting or public forum, provided he/she (1) is careful not to cast doubt on his/her integrity, impartiality, and independence in adjudicating matters that could result in revenue for the town and (2) avoids impermissible comment on any identifiable pending or impending case before the judge” (Opinion 19-63 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]).

          Second, we have advised that, if a judge of a local justice court concludes that their court “is not adequately included on either the Unified Court System’s website or on the local municipality’s website, the judge may create and maintain an independent website for the justice court itself” (Opinion 12-35).  Given that the judge’s municipality expressly declined to include the local court on its website, we said the judge could create an independent justice court website to provide “legal information such as court hours, the court calendar, biographical information about all judges of the court, downloadable forms, links to the Unified Court System website and/or other official (non-political) government websites, and any other relevant factual information” (id. [emphasis in original]).  We noted that the website must be consistent with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, including judicial impartiality and the public comment rule (see id.).  We also said the judge should “take reasonable steps to ensure” that the website “will not mislead members of the public into assuming that the justice court website is ‘official’ and has the imprimatur of the Unified Court System” (id. [citation and some internal quotation marks omitted]).

          Here, we similarly conclude that a town court may issue an annual report about its activities and accomplishments, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct.  To avoid even the appearance of misuse of judicial prestige for private or political interests, the inquiring judge must collaborate with his/her co-judges, if any, and issue the report solely in the name of the court, rather than his/her own name.  In essence, the report must be issued on behalf of the town court itself, rather than any individual judge(s) thereof.  We further emphasize that the report must promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court and must comply with the public comment rule.

          In that regard, cases remain “pending or impending” for purposes of the public comment rule “at least until the time for appeals has expired and often longer, that is, as long as any appeal or collateral proceeding in the case is pending or likely” (Opinion 15-100 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]).  Even once a case is no longer “pending or impending” in this sense, we have still recommended that judges “should not go beyond the published decision” when discussing their own cases (id.).  Thus, while the town court’s annual report may include copies of actual published decisions without commentary, explanation or clarification, we conclude that any discussion of recently decided cases, including the resolution of a longstanding local dispute, should be limited to a “head note style” summary (Opinion 13-86).