Is a judge disqualified when counsel’s firm formerly employed the judge’s college-age son as a part-time errand runner?

Plain-English summary

A firm representing a defendant had employed the judge’s college-age son part-time as an errand runner for a few months. His employment ended in December 2005; he recalled no knowledge of the case and had not discussed it with the judge. The Commission found no disqualification on those facts.

The opinion says a child’s employment by counsel’s firm alone does not require recusal. It identifies whether the relative remains employed and whether the relative worked on the case as important facts. It explains that a disqualifying circumstance can end, absent extraordinary reasons for continued recusal.

The Commission discussed disclosure under Canon 3E when a relative is employed by counsel, so parties may identify additional circumstances. Its stated answer concerned former employment with no known connection to the litigation.

In practice

The opinion distinguished a former, uninvolved employee from a relative with an ongoing or case-specific connection to appearing counsel.

Common questions

Q: Did the former errand-runner job alone require recusal?

A: No. The Commission found no disqualification on the stated facts.

Q: What facts were important?

A: The son no longer worked at the firm, recalled no knowledge of the case, and had not discussed it with the judge.

Q: Why did the opinion discuss disclosure?

A: It said disclosure of a relative’s employment can let parties supply any additional facts bearing on impartiality.

Background and rules framework

The opinion uses prior advisory decisions about relatives employed by counsel and discusses Canon 3E disclosure of relationships to parties and attorneys.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3E

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinion 05-852, former firm employment without case involvement
• Alabama Advisory Opinion 96-608, a judge’s son working for counsel

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-883: Recusal After Representing a Defendant’s Spouse
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-885: Judge’s Domestic Violence Advocacy Letter

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 07-884

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: July 13,2007 ADVISORY OPINION 07-884
DISQUALIFICATION - JUDGE'S SON
FORMERLYEMPLOYED BYALAWFIRM
REPRESENTING ONE OF THE PARTIES
ISSUE
Is a judge disqualified to hear a case in which
a party is represented by a law finn that
fonnerly employed thejudge's college-age son
part-time as an "errand runner"? Answer: No,
a judge is not disqualified when his son is no
longer employed by the finn, has no
recollection ofany knowledge ofthe case, and
did not discuss the case with the judge.
FACTS
The judge's son, while in college, was
employed part-time as an "errand runner" for a
law finn that represents the defendant in a case
assigned to thejudge. The judge's son worked
for a few months until December 2005. The
case was filed in July 2005. He does not
remember having any knowledge of the case
while employed with the finn, and he did not
discuss the case with the judge.
DISCUSSION
The mere fact ofemploymentofajudge's child
by a law finn involved in the case does not
cause disqualification. Advisory Opinion 96­
608 (law-student/son employed as staff
assistant does not alone cause disqualification),
and opinions cited therein, including Advisory
Opinions 90-401 (same for child/part-time
clerical assistant), and 85-239 (same for
child/law clerk). See also Advisory Opinion
01-785 (same for child/secretary). The judge
may be disqualified, however, depending on
the particular circumstances. Advisory
Opinion 96-608. In detennining whether
disqualification is required, the judge should
himself access all facts and circumstances
surrounding the case, his relationship with
the employee, and the employee's
relationship to the case. Advisory Opinions
05-852, 01-785, and 96-608.
In Advisory Opinion 05-852, the
Commission concluded that a judge was not
disqualified from presiding in a case where
one of the parties was represented by a law
finn that was the fonner employer of the
judge's wife/legal secretary who had not had
any involvement with the case. In making
that detennination, the Commission
considered, as highly relevant, the fonner
employee's degree of involvement or non­
involvement in the case. The status of
employment, i.e., whether the relative is still
employed with the finn, was also a critical
factor, for a judge is not disqualified after a
circumstance causing disqualification has
ceased to exist unless extraordinary
circumstances require continued
disqualification. /d.
In any proceeding in which ajudge's relative
is employed by one of the attorneys or law
finns involved, thejudgeshould disclose that
fact to the attorneys, even ifhe believes that
there is no real basis for disqualification.
Canon 3E. See Advisory Opinion 96-608.
This disclosure could avoid the appearanceof
impropriety and give the parties and their
attorneys the opportunity to supply
infonnation regarding whetherany additional
circumstances exist under which the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Advisory Opinions 06-865 and 04-845.
ADVISORY OPINION 07-884
PAGE 2
REFERENCES
Advisory Opinions 06-865, 05-852, 04-845,
01-785,96-608,90-401, and 85-239.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon
3E.
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
infonnation, 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].