Ethical Boundaries for Veteran Treatment Court Mentors

The Role of a Mentor in VTCs

At its core, a Veteran Treatment Court (VTC) mentor serves as a trusted peer and supporter of veteran participants (mentors), guiding them through the court process and connecting them with the necessary resources. Their primary obligations include engaging with and encouraging mentees, assisting them in resolving personal or logistical challenges, maintaining confidentiality to protect their trust, and attending court hearings in support of the mentees. However, a mentor is not a lawyer, therapist, probation officer, or member of the VTC staffing team. They should not provide legal advice, make supervision recommendations to court staff, or take part in decisions regarding their mentee’s case.

The Importance of Confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality is a fundamental responsibility for a mentor. Mentees need to feel secure in their communications, knowing their private discussions will remain confidential in both formal mentoring sessions and casual conversations outside the courtroom, with the only exception being when mentors must report concerns about self-harm or harm to others. VTCs should establish clear mentor guidelines for what information can and cannot be shared. These guidelines ensure that mentors will fulfill their role responsibly.

Judicial Ethics and Mentor-Judge Relationships

Judges in Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) must maintain not only impartiality but also the appearance of impartiality. To uphold this standard, judges should avoid private meetings or informal discussions with mentors.  All mentor-judge interactions should take place during formal VTC review sessions in the courtroom in the presence of court staff. Engaging in private conversations with mentors may constitute ex parte communication—an off-the-record discussion about a case without the presence of all parties—which is prohibited under judicial ethics rules.

Such interactions risk compromising the fairness and impartiality of court proceedings, as they allow for one-sided input outside the presence of all parties involved. Even if well-intentioned, these discussions can create the appearance of bias or undue influence, undermining public confidence in the court. Judges must uphold strict ethical boundaries to ensure that all decisions are based on proper legal procedures and transparent judicial review.

Therefore, judicial ethics prohibit judges from privately discussing a mentee’s progress with a mentor, soliciting a mentor’s opinion about the court’s decisions, or giving preferential treatment to mentors or mentees based on personal relationships. These restrictions protect the legitimacy of VTCs, ensuring that decisions are made based on legal standards rather than informal conversations. Establishing clear boundaries for mentor-judge interactions is essential to preserving the integrity of the court.

Best Practices for Veteran Treatment Court Mentors and Judges

To prevent any ethical conflicts, VTCs should create written mentor policies which detail mentor obligations and emphasize that they are not part of the staffing team. Because of their confidentiality requirements, mentors cannot participate in closed-door discussions about their mentee’s case. Courts should also implement comprehensive mentor training, including confidentiality training so mentors understand their role and what they can and cannot disclose to court staff.

The court should designate an individual or team, typically a volunteer, to coordinate mentors in the Veterans Treatment Court (VTC) and ensure they adhere to the court’s expectations. Mentor coordination teams should function independently of judicial influence, allowing mentor groups to operate autonomously while implementing screening policies to select individuals committed to ethical standards. Establishing a structured mentor program is a key best practice for maintaining program integrity and effectiveness.

Conclusion

Veteran Treatment Court mentors play a vital role in helping veterans navigate the legal system, by offering crucial support, guidance, and encouragement. However, their impact depends on maintaining a necessary separation with the court; ensuring that mentorship enhances, rather than compromises, the court’s effectiveness. Establishing clear boundaries between mentors and the judicial process safeguards fairness and prevents conflicts of interest, preserving the credibility of VTCs. By defining mentor roles and ensuring they are consistently followed, VTCs can cultivate a mentorship program that not only provides meaningful support to veterans but also upholds the integrity of the justice system, promoting accountability, fairness, and long-term rehabilitation success.

For additional information, check out Mentors in Veterans Treatment Courts by Eileen C. Moore and James Starks Jr., Ed.D.