Is a judge disqualified from a school board contract case because the judge’s daughter is a substitute teacher seeking permanent employment in the district?

Plain-English summary

The judge’s daughter worked as a substitute teacher and intended to seek permanent employment in a county school system. The judge was assigned a case arising from a school board contract in which some board members were defendants.

The Commission concluded that the judge was not disqualified. The daughter was not an employee of a party, and the Commission’s earlier school-system opinions found that even employment by a party did not automatically require recusal.

The opinion identified facts that could change the result: bias or knowledge of disputed facts arising from the employment, an interest of the daughter substantially affected by the outcome, a material-witness role, or other personal involvement in the controversy. None appeared in the inquiry.

In practice

The opinion applies to a relative’s employment connection without a case-specific interest or role in the litigation.

Common questions

Q: Did substitute teaching alone require recusal?

A: No. The Commission found the judge was not disqualified.

Q: Was the daughter employed by a party?

A: No. Some school board members were defendants, but she worked for the school system.

Q: What additional facts might matter?

A: The opinion names bias, an affected interest, material testimony, or other personal involvement in the case.

Background and rules framework

Canon 3C(1) governs reasonable questions about impartiality. The opinion discusses subsections (a), (c), (d)(ii), and (d)(iii) for bias, affected interests, and material witnesses.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1), including subsections (a), (c), (d)(ii), and (d)(iii)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinions 80-73, 81-103, 82-133, 86-286, 88-322, 88-345, 92-462, 97-632, and 99-721

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 04-842: Firm Colleague Represents Opposing Estate
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 04-843: Equal Honorarium for Conference Participation
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 06-859: Judge’s Spouse and Defendant Share an Employer

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 04-841

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: JULY 9, 2004 ADVISORY OPINION 04-841
DISQUALIFICATION WHEN A RELATIVE
OF THE JUDGE HAS AN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP TO A PARTY
ISSUE
Does the fact that the judge's daughter is a
substitute teacher who intends to seek perma­
nent employment in the county public school
system disqualify the judge from hearing a
case related to a school board contract in
which some members of the board are defen­
dants? Answer: No.
FACTS
The judge's daughter has been employed as a
substitute teacher in a county school system
and she intends to ask to be made permanent
for the coming school year. The judge has
been assigned a case in which some members
ofthe school board, along with other parties,
have been sued for defamation, interference
with a contract with the school board associ­
ated with building projects, and other wrong­
ful acts in connection with the plaintiff's dis­
missal from the job for which he had been
hired by the school board.
DISCUSSION
The Commission has previously addressed
the issue of disqualification due to employ­
ment ofa judge's relative by a party to a case.
Advisory Opinions 80-73, 81-103, 82-133, 86-286,
88-322,88-345, 92-462,97-632, and 99-721. The
judge's daughter is not an employee of a
party. However, prior opinions involving a
relative employed by a party are instructive
as they involve a similar, closer relationship
than the one presented.
Four prior opinions have involved school
system cases when a close relative of the
judge was a teacher employed by the school
system. Advisory Opinions 80-73, 81-103, 88­
322, and 99-721. In each, the Commission
found the mere fact the relative was employed
as a teacher by the school system did not dis­
qualify the judgefrom hearingthe case as this
relationship alone is insufficient to create a
reasonable question as to the judge's impar­
tiality under the general provision governing
disqualification in Canon 3C(1). Rather, dis­
qUalification was found not to result unless
(a) the judge had a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding, as a result of his relative's em­
ployment (Canon 3C(1) (a»; (b) the judge's
relative was known by the judge to have an
interest that could be substantially affected
by the outcome of the proceeding (e.g., the
outcome might affect salary or employment
status) (Canons 3C(1)(c) and 3C(1)(d)(ii»; (c)
the judge's relative was to the judge's knowl­
edge likely to be a material witness in the pro­
ceeding (Canon 3C(l)(d)(iii»; or, (d) the
judge's relative had some other personal in­
volvement in the matter in controversy that
required disqualificationthroughcausingthe
judge's impartiality to be reasonably ques­
tionable (Canon 3C(1».
As none of the foregoing additional circum­
stances exist, the Commission is of the opin­
ion that the inquiring judge is not disquali­
fied to hear the subject case.
REFERENCES
Advisory Opinions 80-73, 81-103, 82-133, 86-286,
88-322,88-345, 92-462,97-632, and 99-721.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
3C(l), 3C(l)(a), 3C(1)(c), 3C(1)(d)(ii) and
3C(1)(d)(iii).
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 ofProcedure ofthe Judicial Inquiry Com­
mission. Forfurther information, you may contact
the JUdicial Inquiry Commission, P. O. Box 303400,
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-3400; tel.: (334) 242­
4089; fax: (334) 353-4043; E-mail: [email protected].