Could a judge answer a corporation president’s ex parte complaint about a ruling by sending the other party a copy?
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
A corporation’s nonlawyer agent filed an answer that the judge struck. After the court allowed additional time to submit an acceptable answer, the corporation president sent the judge a letter complaining about the ruling, apparently without serving the opposing party.
The judge asked whether a written explanation to the president would be proper if a copy went to the other party. The Commission said the proposed reply would not be proper. It quoted Canon 3 A (4)’s requirement to afford interested people a right to be heard and its restriction on ex parte communications about pending or impending proceedings.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 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: Would copying the other party make the proposed reply proper?
A: No. The Commission rejected the proposed reply even with a copy to the opposing party.
Q: What prompted the president’s letter?
A: The judge had struck the corporation’s answer because it was signed by a nonlawyer agent.
Q: Was the president’s letter served on the opposing party?
A: The Commission said it did not appear to have been served.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes Canon 3 A (4), which addresses the right to be heard and, except as authorized by law, bars a judge from initiating or considering ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3 A (4)
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 94-523: Ex Parte Judicial Communication
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 92-456: Pretrial Release Staff Communication
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 77-21
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
77-21
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
March 30, 1977
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning the propriety of a certain action proposed to be taken by you in your official capacity. You describe the following facts in the attachments included with your letter: A complaint was filed in the District Court of Pike County, Alabama by a certain party against a corporation. It then appears that an answer was filed on behalf of the corporation by an agent of the corporation which agent was not an attorney. By order of your court, on March 7, 1977, the answer of the corporation was stricken and the corporation given an additional fourteen days in order to file an acceptable answer or have a default judgment entered against the corporation. Subsequent to the entry of this order, you received a letter addressed to you and signed by the president of the corporation. In this letter, the corporation complained of the unfairness of the striking of the answer of the corporation on the grounds that the agent signing the answer was not an attorney. This letter was apparently an ex parte communication to you by the president of the corporation and it does not appear to have been served upon the opposing party. You ask whether you may respond to the letter from the president of the corporation explaining your ruling if you serve the other party to this action with a copy of that response. Based upon the foregoing statement of facts, we are of the opinion that it would not be proper for you to reply as you propose. Canon 3 A (4) of the Canons of Judicial Ethics of Alabama states in pertinent part as follows: “A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to the law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding....” Very truly yours,
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