Opinion 24-188

December 12, 2024

Digest:  (1) A town justice may not agree to a private meeting proposed by the village police and village mayor to discuss procedural issues the police have encountered in filing accusatory instruments or otherwise initiating proceedings in the town court, unless the meeting also includes representatives from the criminal defense bar.

            (2) A town justice may receive and address grievances from the village police and the village mayor about the work performance of the town court clerk.  The judge has discretion in handling the grievance and may subsequently inform the complainants that the matter was either unsubstantiated, or if substantiated, that the matter has been addressed without disclosing specific disciplinary actions.

Rules:   Town Law § 20(1)(a); 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A)-(C); Opinions 17-101; 13-124/13-125/13-128/13-129; 11-144.

Opinion:

          A town justice asks if it is ethically permissible to meet privately with the police and mayor of a village located within the town, at their request, to discuss the court’s procedures for filing vehicle and traffic tickets and requesting orders of protection.  Although these matters are handled by the town court, the village police have repeatedly encountered difficulties in the filing process.  The judge further asks if he/she may address grievances raised by the village mayor and police regarding allegedly negative interactions with the town court clerk when the village police have attempted to file traffic tickets and request orders of protection.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge must not allow social, political, or other relationships to influence his/her judicial conduct or judgment (see 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]).

1. Proposed Private Meeting

The village mayor and police have requested a meeting with the town justices to discuss court procedures after the village police encountered difficulty filing vehicle and traffic tickets and requesting orders of protection.  We have previously advised “a judge’s participation in this type of exclusive, private meeting may well cast doubt upon a judge’s impartiality, particularly where the attendees, who represent one set of interests before the judge, wish to discuss substantive and procedural legal issues in the other side’s absence” (Opinion 17-101 [citations omitted]).

We conclude that in the present circumstances the danger of the judge’s impartiality appearing compromised weighs against a private meeting, and the judge must not agree to meet with only the village mayor and police (see id.; Opinions 13-124/13-125/13-128/13-129; 11-144).  The judge can dispel this danger by inviting representatives of defense interests, such as the Public Defender and members of the defense bar who appear in the town court handling village matters (see Opinions 13-124/13-125/13-128/13-129; 11-144).

2. Grievances Against the Town Court Clerk

          As the judge is aware that the proposed meeting was prompted by the village police’s frustration with the town court clerk’s handling of their attempts to file accusatory instruments or otherwise initiate proceedings in the town court, the judge also asks if he/she may address grievances against the clerk. 

          We note initially that employment and discharge of the town court clerk requires the advice and consent of the town justices (see Town Law § 20[1][a]).  We conclude it is ethically permissible for the judge to receive a complaint from the public, including the village police and mayor, regarding a court employee whose employment is subject to the judge’s advice and consent.  The judge thereafter has discretion in assessing the validity of the complaint and deciding what action, if any, is necessary.  If the judge concludes the complaints are substantiated, the judge might exercise discretion to discuss the matter with the court clerk, require additional training or other appropriate corrective measures, or initiate disciplinary measures or termination.  The judge may subsequently inform the complainants that the matter was either unsubstantiated, or if substantiated, that the matter has been addressed without disclosing specific disciplinary actions.

          Given the nature of the complaints, we note that it may potentially be helpful to consult with an appropriate administrative or supervising judge on how to proceed.