Judicial Ethics Opinion 20-31
May a judge may teach a law school course based on a now-concluded homicide trial in his/her jurisdiction?
May 28, 2020 at 06:35 AM
5 minute read
The Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics responds to written inquiries from New York state's approximately 3,600 judges and justices, as well as hundreds of judicial hearing officers, support magistrates, court attorney-referees, and judicial candidates (both judges and non-judges seeking election to judicial office). The committee interprets the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100) and, to the extent applicable, the Code of Judicial Conduct. The committee consists of 27 current and retired judges, and is co-chaired by former associate justice George D. Marlow of the Appellate Division and the Honorable Margaret Walsh, a justice of the Supreme Court.
Digest: A judge may teach a law school course based on a now-concluded homicide trial in his/her jurisdiction only if the time for appeals is exhausted and no related matters are pending or reasonably foreseeable. In teaching the class, the judge may only use materials from the public record.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.0(U)-(V); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.3(B)(11); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(B); Opinions 16-178; 14-26; 13-82; 12-126; 11-77; 10-206; 10-189; 10-153; 04-110; 01-03; 97-132; 95-105.
Opinion:
A full-time judge asks if he/she may teach a law school course that would provide students with a holistic view of an actual homicide trial the judge presided over and tried to verdict. The judge would select a case in which the appeals process has been exhausted and would only disseminate materials that are part of the public record. For example, the judge would not disclose grand jury minutes and would redact documents appropriately as needed. During the course, students would review and analyze discovery, draft and argue pre-trial suppression motions, and prepare opening and closing arguments.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge may engage in extra-judicial activities such as teaching, provided that such activities are not incompatible with judicial office and do not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]; 100.4[B]). A judge may not, however, make any public comment on a matter that is "pending or impending" in any court in the United States or its territories (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]), including "one that is reasonably foreseeable but has not yet been commenced" (22 NYCRR 100.0[V]).
Preliminarily, we reaffirm our well-established but very narrow exception to the public comment rule: it is permissible when a judge is teaching a regular course of study at a law school or college (compare Opinions 10-189 [law school course]; 95-105 [university course on criminal justice, punishment, sociology of law, and criminology] with Opinions 11-77 [CLE program]; 01-03 [panel discussion]; 97-132 [single lecture at law school]). The exception is strictly limited to situations where the judge, as teacher of a regular course of study, wishes to comment in the classroom on a pending or impending case arising in another jurisdiction (see Opinions 13-82; 11-77; 10-189). Because this "regular course of study" exception does not permit comment on pending or impending cases arising in that judge's court or in a court within the judge's jurisdiction (see e.g. Opinions 13-82; 12-126; 10-189), and this judge wishes to use a case in which he/she personally presided, the key question is whether the case is "pending or impending" within the meaning of the public comment rule.
A pending proceeding is one that has begun but has not yet reached final disposition, and an impending proceeding is one that is reasonably foreseeable but has not yet been commenced (see 22 NYCRR 100.0[U]-[V]; Opinion 10-206). In essence, the "prohibition lasts as long as the case is 'pending or impending' in any respect" (Opinion 16-178). This means "at least until the time for appeals has expired and often longer" (Opinions 13-82; 10-153). A matter is pending or impending even after the original trial is complete if any appeal, collateral proceeding, parole hearing, or other proceeding in the case is pending or likely (see Opinion 10-206).
Thus, for example, in Opinion 13-82, we said a judge may not teach a law school course analyzing a highly publicized local criminal case while a closely related civil case remains pending. Likewise, "a judge may not comment even on previously decided aspects of a matter that have been rendered moot, because the 'case remains pending, regardless of the disposition of a particular issue and that suffices to maintain the prohibition against public comment'" (Opinion 14-26 [citation omitted]). Conversely, a judge may publicly discuss a case where the appeals process has been exhausted and there has been no litigation involving the matter for five years (see Opinion 04-110).
Here, the inquiring judge may teach the proposed law school course provided he/she selects a case that is not "pending or impending" in any respect, the appeals process in the case has been exhausted, and the judge is satisfied that no related matters are pending or reasonably foreseeable. In teaching the class, the judge must only provide students with materials from the public record. The judge must not disclose or use grand jury minutes or other nonpublic materials, even if he/she would redact them for pedagogical purposes (cf. 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][11] [a judge "shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity"]).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250