Did a judge have to disclose a bank-customer relationship to absent defendants when entering default judgments for the bank?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1977. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The request concerned a judge’s relationship as a customer of a bank when entering default judgments against defendants who failed to appear in loan-repayment cases brought by that bank.
The Commission stated that the bank-customer relationship did not require disclosure to the nonappearing defendants. The brief opinion did not cite a numbered Canon or address a defendant who appeared.
Currency note
This opinion is indexed as 1977, 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 relationship did the judge have with the bank?
A: The opinion describes a bank-customer relationship.
Q: Which defendants were covered by the answer?
A: Defendants who did not appear and against whom default judgments were entered for failure to repay bank loans.
Q: Did the opinion cite a numbered Canon?
A: No. The published answer contains no numbered Canon citation.
Background and rules framework
The Commission’s answer is limited to disclosure of the stated bank-customer relationship to nonappearing defendants in the described default judgments; it supplies no numbered Canon analysis.
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 97-633: Bank Loan Default Judgment Disclosure
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-571: Bank Customer Loan and Recusal
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 77-14
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
77-14
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
February 3, 1977
Your request for an Advisory Opinion regarding a judge disclosing his relationship with a bank when judgments by default are entered and neither of the parties are present is rendered herewith: ADVISORY OPINION “A bank-customer-relationship between a judge and a bank does not require the disclosure by a judge to non-appearing defendants against whom judgments by default are entered for failure to pay off loans to the bank.” If the Commission can be of further service to you, please do not hesitate to call on us.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1977. 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