Development of effective sentences, timely responses to probation violations, and successful compliance requires an ethically appropriate relationship with prosecutors featuring openness and balance. Issues related to hardcore drunk driving must be discussed in open forums in which the adversarial process is respected and ex parte discussions are avoided. The goal is balanced participation that addresses the administration of justice.
Examples of ethics advisory opinions that set forth ethical parameters for multi-disciplinary group discussion of hardcore drunk driving issues include: Illinois 98-1, South Carolina 23- 2006, and Florida Judicial Ethics Opinion—2004-14. This is to be contrasted with ethical limitations when a judge seeks to speak with prosecutors in a closed meeting or trainingin which only prosecutors are present. In those situations, the judge must be willing and available to train attorneys representing the other defense bar as well.1