Could an active supernumerary circuit judge accept a seat on the Cahaba River Commission?

Plain-English summary

An active supernumerary circuit judge asked whether serving on the Cahaba River Commission would conflict with judicial ethics. The request attached the House joint resolution creating that body.

The Commission applied Canon 5G, which addresses governmental appointments involving fact or policy beyond improvement of the law or administration of justice. It thought the Cahaba River Commission role necessarily involved such matters and said it was desirable for the judge not to accept. It knew of no provision qualifying the Canons’ application to supernumerary judges and invited the judge to supply one for reconsideration.

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: What aspect of the commission role troubled the Commission?

A: It would involve recommendations on fact or policy matters outside improvement of the law, legal system, or administration of justice.

Q: Did the Commission claim its supernumerary-judge analysis was final regardless of other rules?

A: No. It invited information about any qualifying provision so it could reconsider.

Q: Which Canon did it quote?

A: Canon 5G on extrajudicial governmental appointments.

Background and rules framework

The opinion quotes Canon 5G’s treatment of appointments to governmental committees and commissions concerned with matters outside improvement of law, the legal system, or administration of justice. It applies that provision to the commission’s recommendation role.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 5
• Canon 5G

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 81-111: Criminal Justice Commission
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 77-17: City Board of Education

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 76-2
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

76-2
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
May 7, 1976
Reference is made to your letter of April 26, 1976, with attached copy of Act No. 11 - H.J.R. 18-Owens, House Joint Resolution Creating the Cahaba River Commission, requesting our opinion as to whether your serving as a member of the commission would violate any rule of ethics in force governing the conduct of an active Supernumerary Circuit Judge. Canon 5 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics is entitled, "A Judge Should Regulate His Extra-Judicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of Conflict with His Judicial Duties." Subsection G of Canon 5 (page 23) provides as follows: “Extra-judicial Appointments: “It is desirable that a judge should not accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, or other position that 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 or unless required by law. A judge, however, may represent his county, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational and cultural activities.” It would appear that in making recommendations as a member of the Cahaba River Commission you would necessarily be concerned with “issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law,” etc. Accordingly, we are constrained to express the opinion that it is desirable for you not to accept the appointment. This Commission is unaware of any qualifying provisions relating to the application of the canons to Supernumerary Judges. If you have knowledge of any such qualifying provisions, please call them to our attention and give us the opportunity of reconsidering this opinion.