Is a judge disqualified when an attorney’s parent managed a department where the judge worked 15 years earlier?

Plain-English summary

Before becoming a lawyer, the judge worked for a corporation from 1994 to 1998. The manager of the judge’s department was the father of an attorney who later appeared frequently in the judge’s court. The manager was not the judge’s immediate supervisor, and the judge reported no personal or continuing legal, business, or social relationship with him.

The Commission concluded that this professional association about 15 years earlier did not create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality under Canon 3C(1). It contrasted situations in which a former employer was a party and the judge had served as its legal adviser while the current case arose or was pending. The Commission confined its answer to general ethics advice; a recusal decision in a specific case remained with the judge.

In practice

For an attorney whose parent once managed the judge’s department, the opinion finds no disqualification on those facts, including the absence of a personal or ongoing relationship.

Common questions

Q: Does the former manager’s parent-child relationship with counsel require recusal?

A: No. The Commission says the remote professional association is insufficient on the stated facts.

Q: Did the judge have a continuing relationship with the former manager?

A: No. The opinion states there was no ongoing legal, business, or social relationship and that the judge had rarely seen the manager in 15 years.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 3C(1)’s objective standard: whether a person of ordinary prudence knowing the judge’s facts would reasonably question impartiality.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1)

Cases:

• In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350, 356 (Ala. 1984), ordinary-prudence standard
• Ex parte Hill, 508 So. 2d 269, 272 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987), ordinary associations

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinions 98-700 and 89-359 through 89-365, prior employment
• Alabama Advisory Opinion 09-902, judge’s recusal determination

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 89-359: Prior Governor Employment
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 88-345: Spouse’s Agency Employment

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 13-924

Original opinion text

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

· ,
JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: October 2,2013 ADVISORY OPINION 13-924
DISQUALIFICATION: ATTORNEY'S
PARENT IS JUDGE'S FORMER
SUPERVISOR
ISSUE
Is a judge disqualified from presiding in
cases in which the parent of an attorney
representing a party in a case assigned to
the judge was the judge's supervisor
during the judge's employment 15 years
ago?
FACTS
Before the judge became an attorney
licensed to practice law in Alabama, the
judge was employed by a major
Alabama corporation. During that
employment, specifically from 1994 to
1998, the judge worked in a division ofa
certain department. The manager of that
department during those years is the
father of an attorney who frequently
practices in the judge's court. He was
not the judge's immediate supervisor,
and the judge did not, nor at any time
since, have any personal-type
relationship with him. In addition, the
judge and the former manager do not
have any ongoing legal, business, or
social relationship. In fact, the judge has
rarely seen him during the past 15 years.
DISCUSSION
Foremost, the decision whether to recuse
rests with the judge, and the
Commission cannot invade that province
of the trial court. Advisory Opinion 09­

902. Thus, the Commission must restrict
     its advisory opinion to general advice
     regarding the application of the Alabama
     Canons of Judicial Ethics. In addition,
     although the canons have the force of
     law, the opinions of the Judicial Inquiry
     Commission are rendered in connection
     with the ethical conduct ofthe judge and
     "are not binding and do not affect a
     party's rights or remedies." Ex parte
     Balogun, 516 So. 2d 606, 609 (Ala.
     1987), abrogated on other ground, Ex
     parte Crawford, 686 So. 2d 196 (Ala.
     1996).
     Under the canons, disqualification is
     required when the judge's "impartiality
     might reasonably be questioned." Canon
     3C(1). The test to determine whether a
     judge's impartiality might reasonably be
     questioned is "would a person of
     ordinary prudence in the judge's position
     knowing all of the facts known to the
     judge find that there is a reasonable basis
     for questioning the judge's
     impartiality?" In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d
     350, 356 (Ala. 1984).
     A judge is not disqualified on account of
     his or her former employment by a P.ill!Y
     unless the judge was employed as legal
     advisor to that party at a time when the
     present case arose or was pending.
     Advisory Opinion 98-700 (a judge is not
     disqualified on the basis he or she had
     been employed by some of the parties
     several years earlier); 89-359 through ­
     365 (the judge's previous employment
     as the governor's legal advisor does not
     disqualify the judge in a case in which
     the governor is a party except in cases
     pending during the judge's tenure as the
     governor's legal advisor). See also
     Clemmons v. State, 469 So. 2d 1324
     · ,
     ADVISORY OPINION 13-924
     Page 2
     (Ala. Crim. App. 1985) (''that the trial
     judge and victim knew each other and
     possibly enjoyed a friendship both
     professionally and socially is not reason
     enough to require the judge to recuse
     himself').
     It follows that the judge's prior
     professional association, 15 years earlier,
     with the father of an attorney
     representing a party in a case before the
     judge does not create a reasonable
     question as to the judge's impartiality
     and is an insufficient basis for
     disqualification. "I[t] is an inescapable
     fact of life that judges serving
     throughout the State will necessarily
     have had associations and friendships
     with parties [and their attorneys] coming
     before their courts. A judge should not
     be subject to disqualification for such
     ordinary relations with his fellow
     citizens." Ex parte Hill, 508 So. 2d 269,
     272 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987).
     REFERENCES
     Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics,
     Canon 3C(I)
     Alabama Advisory Opinions 09-902; 98­
     700; 89-359 through -365; 84-221
     Ex parte Balogun, 516 So. 2d 606, 609
     (Ala. 1987), abrogated on other ground,
     Ex parte Crawford, 686 So. 2d 196 (Ala.
     1996)
     In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350, 356
     (Ala. 1984)
     Ex parte Hill, 508 So. 2d 269, 272 (Ala.
     Civ. App. 1987)
     Clemmons v. State, 469 So. 2d 1324
     (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)
     Rule 18, Rules of Procedure of the
     Judicial Inquiry Commission
     This opmlOn is advisory only and is
     based on the specific facts and questions
     submitted by the judge who requested
     the opinion pursuant to Rule 18 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.