Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-AL

Does a judge remain disqualified from a lawyer's cases after a class action involving the judge ends?

Short answer No, on the facts presented. After the judicial-compensation class action ended, the Commission found no unusual circumstance continuing to call impartiality into question in other cases involving the plaintiffs' lawyers or their firms.
Bar
JUDICIAL-AL
Issued
December 15, 2000
Source
View Original PDF

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.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A judge had been disqualified from matters involving lawyers for plaintiffs in an unrelated judicial-compensation class action because of the judge's own participation in that action. The class action, Hardaway v. Childree, had ended.

The Commission concluded that the prior disqualification did not continue automatically after termination. It acknowledged that extraordinary circumstances could leave a reasonable question about impartiality, but found none in the situation presented.

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: Did the prior recusal continue indefinitely?

A: No. The Commission said the end of the class action removed the ground on the stated facts.

Q: Could a completed representation ever still support recusal?

A: Yes. The Commission recognized that extraordinary circumstances after resolution could continue to raise a reasonable question.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discussed earlier Commission advice about prior legal representation of a judge and the Hardaway judicial-compensation suit. It limited the result to the absence of unusual continuing circumstances.

Citations and references

The opinion cites Advisory Opinions 80-74, 92-443, 94-516, and 96-590, and discusses its earlier Hardaway opinions 95-581, 95-582, 95-584, 96-597, and 98-709.

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: DECEMBER 15, 2000 ADVISORY OPINION 00-766
DIS QUALIFIC A T IO N DUE TO
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL AFTER AN
UNRELATEDSUITINWHICHTHEJUDGE
PARTICIPATED THAT CAUSED THE
DISQUALIFICATIONHASTERMINATED
ISSUES
Doesdisqualificationto hearcases in whichan
attorney represents a party, which was caused
by the judge’s participation in a certain class
actionin whichtheattorneyoramemberofthe
attorney’sfirmrepresentstheplaintiffs,continue
aftertheclassactionterminates? Answer: No.
FACTS
A judge has been disqualified to hear cases in
which certain attorneys appear, due to his
participation in an unrelated class action in
whichthoseattorneys ormembersoftheirfirm
represented the plaintiffs. The class action,
Hardaway, et al., v. Childree, et al., which
concernsjudicialcompensation, hasnowbeen
terminated.
DISCUSSION
TheJudicialInquiryCommissionhasrendered
a number of advisory opinions to judges
involvingdisqualification questionsthatarose
as a result of Hardaway, et al., v. Childree, et
al. AdvisoryOpinions95-581,95-582,95-584,
96-597and98-709. TheCommissionconcluded
in those opinions that judges who personally
participated in the suit in certain ways were
disqualifiedto hearotherproceedingsin which
apartywasrepresentedbytheplaintiffs’attorney
or a member of that attorney’s firm.
The Commission has long held that required
disqualification of a judge is not generally by
themerefactofpriorrepresentationofthejudge
by an attorney in an unrelated matter after that
matteriscompleted. AdvisoryOpinions80-74,
92-443, 94-516 and 96-590. However, the
Commission also has recognized that
extraordinary circumstances may sometimes
exist that cause disqualification after the legal
controversyis resolved, due to continuation of
a reasonable question as to the judge’s
impartiality. Advisory Opinions 96-516 and
96-590.
The Commission is unaware of any unusual
circumstances in the situation presented that
might create a reasonable question as to the
judge’simpartiality. Therefore,itistheopinion
of the Commission that the judge is no longer
disqualifiedto hearcases inwhichtheattorney
who represented the plaintiffs in Hardaway,
et al., v. Childree, et al., or a member of that
attorney’s firm, appears.
REFERENCES
Alabama Advisory Opinions 80-74, 92-443,
94-516, and 96-590.
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,youmaycontacttheJudicialInquiry
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