Should an alcoholic beverage commission chairman recuse when his son represents a party?

Plain-English summary

In 1980, the chair of South Carolina's Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission asked what to do when his son appeared as an attorney for a party before the commission. The Attorney General found no directly governing statute or regulation on the stated facts, but advised following judicial disqualification guidance. The commission performed hearings in a judicial manner, and that guidance covered a close relative acting as counsel.

The opinion said the other commission members could still hear and decide the matter after one member's disqualification. It separately considered a lawyer from the son's firm appearing without the son. Under the judicial conduct commentary the AG cited, that association did not generally call for disqualification. The AG expressly noted uncertainty about whether the judicial canons were mandatory for the chairman and presented them as advisable guidance.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1980. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What did the AG advise when the chairman's son represented a party?
A: It advised following judicial disqualification guidance for a close relative acting as a lawyer before the tribunal.

Q: Could the remaining commission members decide the matter?
A: The opinion said yes; disqualification of one member did not prevent the others from acting.

Q: Did another lawyer from the son's firm automatically require recusal?
A: The opinion said judicial conduct commentary generally did not require it on that fact alone.

Background and statutory framework

The AG compared a quasi-judicial administrative commission's hearing role with judicial impartiality rules. A footnote identified a household-based ethics provision as distinct from the broader judicial conduct guidance, and the opinion cautioned that it was unclear whether those canons bound the chairman.

Citations and references

• The opinion described the commission as “a quasi-judicial body.”
• It said following the judicial conduct guidelines “would be advisable” though mandatory application was uncertain.

Official title

On how to proceed when the son of the Chairman of the South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission son appears as an attorney for a party before the Commission.

Requester

The Honorable Miller S. Ingram, Chairman, South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-27-1980-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2-27-The-Honorable-Miller-S-Ingram-00721151xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

The Honorable Miller S. Ingram, 1980 WL 120686 (1980)

1980 WL 120686 (S.C.A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of South Carolina
February 27, 1980
*1 The Honorable Miller S. Ingram
Chairman
South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina
Dear Chairman Ingram:
You have asked this Office for advice on how to proceed when your son appears as an attorney for a party before the South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. Although there appears to be no statute or regulation which governs this situation, 1 the Code of Judicial Conduct [S.Ct. Rule 33] lends some guidance. Canon 3C(1) provides that A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: . . . (a) he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such person: . . . (ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceedings . . ..

Your son comes within the third degree of relationship. 2
The South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission is a quasi-judicial body, and is called upon to conduct hearings and function in a judicial manner. See, Brown v. Debruhl, 468 F.Supp. 513, (SC 1979), and a litigant appearing before the Commission is entitled to a decision rendered by a fair and impartial tribunal. Friedman v. Rogers, 47 U.S.L.W. 4151. The New Jersey Court in Kramer v. City of Plainfield, (N.J.), 244 A.2d 335, faced a similar situation [lawyer-relative appearing before quasi-judicial hearing officer]. The Court recognized the absence of a controlling statute and relied instead upon the Canons of Judicial Conduct noting that:
[w]hile the authorities cited apply specifically only to judges, there is no sound reason why a lesser standard should govern the conduct of those acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. The need for unquestionable integrity, objectivity and impartiality is just as great for quasi-judicial personnel as for judges.

A similar conclusion was reached by the American Bar Association's Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Informal Decision C-449. There the Committee stated that the rules of judicial conduct governing disqualification should be equally applicable to a quasi-judicial officer. [See attached]. In addition, disqualification of one Commission member does not preclude the remaining members of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission from lawfully conducting the proceeding and rendering a decision. See § 61-3-110, CODE OF LAW OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, as amended.

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1

The Honorable Miller S. Ingram, 1980 WL 120686 (1980)

You have further asked whether you should disqualify yourself from any proceeding before the Commission if a member of the law firm of your son's association is representing a party. The commentary to Canon 3(c)(1)(d)(ii) explains that disqualification is not generally required in that circumstance. While it is not clear that the Canons of Judicial Conduct are mandatory in your situation, it would be advisable to follow the guidelines set forth in Canon 3c(1)(d). Very truly yours,
*2 Edwin E. Evans
Assistant Attorney General
Footnotes
There is no requirement in §§ 8-1-10 et seq., CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, as amended [‘State Ethics Act’] 1

2

that an administrative officer disqualify himself in this situation, unless the son resides in the same household as the official. Section 8-13-460. Despite the family relation, Canon 3D permits a judge to hear a matter if all parties agree in writing.

1980 WL 120686 (S.C.A.G.)
End of Document

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2