Opinion 24-192
December 12, 2024
Digest: A town justice may take action in response to a town supervisor’s issuance of a “progress report” detailing the town court’s revenues and expenses, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.0(S); 100.1; 100.2; 100.2(A)-(C); Opinions 24-67; 23-47; 19-120; 19-63; 18-156; 17-73; 07-22.
Opinion:
A town justice has received a copy of a “Justice Court 2024 Progress Report” created by the town supervisor for publication on the town’s website. As described by the judge:
[The report] lists by month each justice’s individual fines/surcharges collected for that month. It also goes on to show the total amounts received by each justice by name and what portion goes to the [State] Comptroller and what the “Town’s income” is at the end of each month. It then totals all columns at the bottom. [It] then goes on to list the salary of each justice and the other employees of the court with a total at the bottom.
The inquiring judge recognizes that such information “is available in the town budget” and is public knowledge. The judge is nonetheless concerned that the report is formatted as a revenue and expenses accounting report and treats the court as though it were a department of the town that must generate sufficient revenue to justify its operating costs. In essence, the judge is concerned that the report is an attempt to influence or interfere with the justice court. Moreover, the inaccurate implication that the court exists to provide financial gain for the town could, in the judge’s view, exacerbate the security risks the court faces from disgruntled litigants. Accordingly, the judge asks if he/she must take any action concerning the report.
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 uphold and preserve the independence of the judiciary (see 22 NYCRR 100.1; see also 22 NYCRR 100.0[S] [“An ‘independent’ judiciary is one free of outside influences or control”]). A judge must “respect and comply with the law” (22 NYCRR 100.2[A]) and not allow social, political, or other relationships to influence his/her judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]). Nor may a judge “convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).
Judges must not “adopt[] or pursu[e] revenue goals in deciding a defendant’s guilt or innocence, in approving guilty pleas, or in assessing fines and penalties where legally appropriate” (Opinion 19-63). Nor may they “consider, as a factor in evaluating a particular [proposed plea] agreement, whether the proceeds of an otherwise fair and lawful traffic fine, accrue to the town versus state treasury, assuming either is legally authorized to receive revenue from traffic fines” (Opinion 07-22). Indeed, we have advised that a town justice must not meet privately with the town comptroller and town board members “to discuss and explain why court revenue has decreased” (Opinion 19-63). We emphasized that “even if other branches of town government imagine the justice court as a revenue center, the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct preclude the justices from acquiescing in that concept of the court” (id.). Similarly, a town justice attending a town board meeting to answer public questions regarding the collection of outstanding fines and court security must be “careful not to cast doubt” on the judge’s “integrity, impartiality, and independence in adjudicating matters that could result in revenue for the town” (Opinion 23-47).
Town and village justices must also safeguard the independence of the justice courts from unwarranted interference by executive and legislative bodies, or even the appearance of such interference. Thus, for instance, a village justice may not acquiesce in the village’s proposed combination of court offices with the village’s executive branch offices, but must notify his/her administrative or supervising judge of the plan (see Opinion 17-73). We likewise said a town justice must notify his/her administrative or supervising judge and object in writing to the town’s installation of cameras in the courtroom and the court clerks’ offices (see Opinions 24-67; 18-156).
Here, as the judge’s concerns about judicial independence, court security, and a possible appearance of impropriety all clearly relate to the legal system and the administration of justice, the judge has full discretion to take any actions he/she deems appropriate under the circumstances, subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct (see e.g. Opinion 19-120). Such actions could potentially include, but are not limited to, objecting in writing, reporting the issue to an appropriate administrative or supervising judge, and/or publicly commenting on the situation (see Opinions 24-67; 19-120; 17-73).
However, we cannot conclude, as a matter of ethics, that the town supervisor’s “progress report” as described is so egregious that the inquirer is ethically obligated to act.