Do a litigant's televised allegations against a judge require the judge to recuse?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2000. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A party in post-divorce proceedings asked a circuit judge to recuse because the party had appeared on local television making allegations about the judge. The judge had not watched the report and knew of it only through the recusal motion.
The Commission held the judge was not disqualified. It applied the rule that a litigant's criticism does not itself force recusal; actual personal bias arising from it or special circumstances that reasonably question impartiality could do so. Neither appeared in the facts submitted.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2000, after the Alabama Supreme Court's 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.
Common questions
Q: Was the public allegation itself enough?
A: No. The Commission found no automatic disqualification from the litigant's television statements.
Q: What circumstances could change the answer?
A: Actual bias developed by the judge or special circumstances causing a reasonable question about impartiality could require recusal.
Background and rules framework
Alabama Canon 3C(1)(a) addresses actual bias or prejudice concerning a party, and Canon 3C(1) more generally addresses reasonably questioned impartiality. The opinion applied both to accusations by a litigant.
Citations and references
The opinion cites Alabama Canons 3C(1) and 3C(1)(a), and Advisory Opinions 90-391, 92-447, 97-636, 98-686, and 98-710.
See also
Source
-
Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
-
Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 00-751
-
Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: MAY 9, 2000 ADVISORY OPINION 00-751
DISQUALIFICATION WHEN A PARTY
MAKES ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE
JUDGE
ISSUE
Is a judge disqualified to hear a case when a
party has appeared on a television news
programmakingallegationsagainstthejudge?
Answer: Since the judge has no actual,
personal bias resulting from the party’s
conduct, he is not disqualified.
FACTS
A few months ago, a circuit judge heard a
contempt petition and a motion to modify that
were related to a divorce action over which he
had presided several years ago. In March, the
former wife filed a motion to cite her ex-
husband for contempt, and this motion has
been set for hearing later this month. The ex-
husband has filed a motion arguing the judge
should recuse himself because the ex-husband
has recently appeared on a local television
news broadcast “speaking out in regard to
allegations against” the judge.
The judge has not seen any portion of the
news report at issue, and he has no knowledge
of that report other than what is stated in the
motion seeking his recusal. He does not feel
he has any prejudice against either party in the
case, and he believes he can be fair and
impartial.
DISCUSSION
This Commission has long held that a
litigant’s actions toward or statements about a
judge during the course of a judicial
proceeding do not cause the judge to be
disqualified unless the judge is actually
influenced and develops a personal bias or
prejudice as a result. See, e.g., Advisory
Opinions 90-391, 92-447, and 97-636. To
hold otherwise would allow a litigant to
control judicial proceedings by making
disqualifyingstatements whenever thelitigant
becomes dissatisfied with the course of the
proceedings, which would cause chaos in the
conduct of those proceedings and in the
administration of justice. Advisory Opinions
90-391, 98-686, and 98-710.
If a judge is actually influenced by a litigant’s
conduct and he or she develops a personal bias
or prejudice against the litigant, then Canon
3C(1)(a) requires the disqualification of the
judge. It is also possible that special
circumstances might exist such that the
making of a particular complaint actually
causes the judge’s impartiality to be
reasonablyquestionable, which would require
disqualification under the general provision in
Canon 3C(1). Advisory Opinion 98-686.
The judge in the present case does not feel
affected, and no special disqualifying
circumstances are apparent. Thus, it is the
opinion of the Commission that the judge is
not disqualified.
REFERENCES
Alabama AdvisoryOpinions 90-391, 92-447,
97-636, 98-686, and 98-710.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
3C(1) and 3C(1)(a).
ADVISORY OPINION 00-751
PAGE 2
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
the judge who requested the opinion pursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, 800 South McDonough
Street, Suite 201, Montgomery, Alabama
36104; tel.: (334) 242-4089; fax: (334) 240-
3327; e-mail: [email protected].
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2000. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace