May a municipal judge hear cases involving an attorney who shares the judge’s law firm secretary and plans to rent space in a building partly owned by the judge?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2006. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
An attorney shared a secretary with the municipal judge’s law firm and was to rent space in a building partly owned by the judge. The attorney paid part of the secretary’s salary, and the judge would receive part of the rent. The attorney had appeared frequently in the judge’s court.
The Commission found the judge disqualified from hearing cases in which that attorney represents a party. Its earlier opinions treated rent paid directly to a judge or spouse by an appearing attorney as grounds for questioning impartiality. The financial benefit could depend on the attorney’s success.
The opinion applies Canon 3C’s disqualification standard and its provisions addressing financial interests that could be affected by a proceeding.
In practice
The holding concerns the judge’s income links to an attorney who appears in the judge’s court, including shared secretary costs and anticipated rent.
Common questions
Q: Could the judge hear the attorney’s cases?
A: No. The Commission said the judge was disqualified when the attorney represented a party.
Q: What financial links mattered?
A: The attorney paid part of the shared secretary’s salary and would pay rent on a building partly owned by the judge.
Q: Why did the Commission question impartiality?
A: The judge received a financial benefit tied to the attorney, and that benefit could depend on the attorney’s financial success.
Background and rules framework
Canon 3C requires disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The opinion quotes Canon 3C(1)(c) and (d)(ii) concerning financial interests potentially affected by a proceeding.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C, including Canon 3C(1)(c) and (d)(ii)
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama Advisory Opinions 81-115, 82-130, 82-164, 86-255, and 97-660
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 06-859: Judge’s Spouse and Defendant Share an Employer
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 06-860: Judge as Unpaid Shareholders’ Agent
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 06-861
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: JANUARY 6, 2006 ADVISORY OPINrON 06-861
DISQUALIFICATION DUE TO FINANCIAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH AN ATTORNEY
FOR A PARTY TO A PROCEEDING
ISSUE
Is a municipal judge disqualified from hearing
cases in which a party is represented by an
attorney who shares a secretary with thejudge's
law finn and who rents office space in a
building partly owned by thejudge. Yes, as a
part owner ofthe building and the law finn both
receiving income from the attorney, thejudge is
disqualified from hearing cases in which the
attorney represents a party.
FACTS
A local attorney has an office sharing
arrangement with a law film of which a part
time municipal courtjudge is a part owner. The
attorney pays part ofthe salary ofa secretary he
shares with the finn and will soon actually rent
office space in the building which is partly
owned by the municipal court judge. As a part
ownerofthe building, the municipal courtjudge
will receive part ofthe rent paid by the attorney.
The attorney has appeared frequently in
municipal court where the judge is newly
appointed.
DISCUSSION
Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics provides the following, in pertinent part:
(I) a judge should disqualify himself in
a proceeding in which his
disqualification is required by law or his
impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, including but not limited to
instances where:
(c) He knows that he, individually or
as a fiduciary, . . . has a financial
interest in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that
could be substantially affected by the
outcome ofthe proceeding.
(d) He or his spouse, or a person
within the fourth degree ofrelationship
to either of them, or the spouse of
such a person:
(ii) Is known by the judge to have an
interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the
proceeding.
In previous advisory opinions the Commission
has consistently found that judges are
disqualified when an attorney in a case before
the judge rents property directly from the
judge orthejudge's spouse. Advisory Opinions
81-115, 82-130, 86-255, and 97-660. These
opinions were based upon the judge's
impartiality being reasonably questionable. The
Commission has explained that a judge's
impartiality is reasonably questionable where
thejudge receives income as a financial benefit
from an attorney or law firm occupying a
building owned by the judge or the judge's
spouse, and the financial benefit or income
may depend on the financial success of the
attorney or law finn. Advisory Opinion 82
164.
REFERENCES
Advisory Opinions 81-115, 82-130, 82-164,
86-255, and 97-660.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
3C( I )(c) and 3C( I )(d)(ii)
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, P. O. Box 303400,
Montgomery, Alabama 36 I 30-3400; tel.: (334)
242-4089; fax: (334) 353-4043; E-mail:
[email protected].
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2006. 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