Could a district judge continue serving on the Fayette County Board of Education?

Plain-English summary

A prospective district judge asked whether the judge could continue on the Fayette County Board of Education. The Commission answered this question first in a letter covering two opinions.

It said a district judge should not serve on a board of education. Elected and appointed board service alike were extrajudicial and concerned issues of fact or policy outside improvement of the law, legal system, or administration of justice under Canon 5G. The letter also directed attention to Alabama law on holding more than one “office for profit” without analyzing that issue further.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1976, 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 it matter whether the judge was elected or appointed to the board?

A: No. The Commission treated either form of board service as extrajudicial.

Q: How did the Commission characterize the board’s work?

A: It involved issues of fact or policy beyond improvement of the law, the legal system, or administration of justice.

Q: Did the Commission decide the separate office-for-profit issue?

A: No. It directed attention to that law without setting out a separate conclusion.

Background and rules framework

The first answer in the shared PDF cites Canon 5G and describes school-board service as outside the law-focused activities contemplated by the Canon.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 5G

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 77-17: City School Board Service
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 79-54: Community Action Agency Board

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 76-11
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

76-11
76-12
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
July 21, 1976
The following Advisory Opinion by this Commission is addressed to you in response to your letters to us dated April 14, 1976 and April 19, 1976, wherein you requested opinions as to the propriety, after assuming the office of District Judge, of; (1) continuing to serve as a member of the Fayette County Board of Education, and (2) engaging in the preparation of abstracts of title. Our responses and opinions are as follows:

1. District Judge Serving as Member of Board of Education. It is the opinion of
   the Judicial Inquiry Commission that a District Judge should not serve as a member of a board of education. Service on a board of education is, as you know, extra-judicial, whether you are elected to the position or serve by appointment. Such service and position is “concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice”. See Canon 5G, Canons of Judicial Ethics. We also direct your attention to the Alabama law regarding the holding of more than one “office for profit”.
2. District Judge Engaged in Preparation of Abstracts of Title. It is the opinion of
   the Judicial Inquiry Commission that a District Judge should not engage the business of preparation of abstracts of title for profit while serving as such. This Commission is aware of the fact that the preparation of abstracts of title is not the “practice of law” as that term is used in the Canons and defined by the laws of Alabama. The preparation of abstracts of title would, however, be an “extra-judicial” activity to which the provisions of Canon 5 address themselves; and we feel that such activity could very likely lead to a conflict if the title to lands which were the subject of abstracts prepared by you should be litigated in your court. We also feel that a continuing business relation with those requesting your abstract services on a regular basis could create problems for you and the court on which you serve.