Guideline 1:04
Courts should be open to contact from advocacy groups concerned with the issues of domestic violence. Meeting to discuss appropriate matters with representatives of such groups can be constructive for judges and other court personnel, as well as for the members of the groups themselves.
Commentary
While the effectiveness of court procedures can be improved through open and constructive dialogue with all individuals and entities involved, it is essential that such meetings are open to all court personnel, the general public, and the defense bar, among others. The Supreme Judicial Court Committee on Judicial Ethics (CJE) has issued two opinion letters on the subject of participation by judges in roundtable meetings with advocacy groups. See CJE Opinion 98-16, (Sept. 15, 1998); CJE Opinion 01-7, (May 31, 2001).
The opinion letters provide specific guidelines under which the propriety of judicial participation in roundtable meetings should be assessed. Judicial attendance at roundtables or other forums is only appropriate when invitations are extended to people representing a variety of perspectives so there is no appearance of being “exposed to an essentially one-sided format.” CJE Opinion 01-7. See also CJE Opinion 98-16.
The occasional participation of the court with advocacy groups in a mutual exchange of appropriate information and a discussion of concerns does not jeopardize the court’s fundamental role as neutral finder of fact, as long as substantive matters and individual pending cases are not discussed. See Guideline 2:08 Role of Advocates in Assisting Parties;Guideline 3:09 Role of Advocates at Ex Parte Hearings; and, Guideline 5:02 Role of Advocates at Hearings After Notice.
The CJE opinion letters provide a two-part test to assess the propriety of judicial participation in roundtable meetings focused on a consideration of the specific subject matter discussed at the meetings and the frequency of the judge’s participation in those meetings. CJE Opinion 98-16. “Confidence in the judge’s impartiality will not be undermined and any perception of favoritism will be sufficiently minimized if participation is occasional, and if the judge avoids repeated attendance at meetings when substantive issues are to be discussed in a one-sided fashion.” Id. For example, the CJE determined that judicial participation in meetings at which procedural issues are addressed, such as logistical concerns regarding the processing of petitions, is not prejudicial to the interests of defendants and any perception of partiality would be mitigated by the beneficial nature of such meetings. Id. The opinion letters clearly state that a judge’s frequent participation in roundtables or attendance at times when the discussion concerns issues not related to court administration is inappropriate. CJE Opinion 01-7. In order to mitigate the risk of compromising the court’s appearance of impartiality as a result of judicial participation in such meetings, “judges may consider notifying the private bar that they will be attending a meeting” or request that the organizers of an event make such notice. CJE Opinion 98-16. Judges may also consider “limiting attendance to a designated portion of the meeting, perhaps at the beginning, when matters related to court administration could be placed on the agenda,” thereby allowing the judge to participate only in those neutral matters. Id.
Contact
Phone
Address
| Last updated: | October 20, 2025 |
|---|