What did the Commission require when worthless-check cases involved customers of a corporation that employed the judge’s son as a manager?
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 judge asked about worthless-check charges against customers of a corporation where the judge’s son worked as a manager.
A majority of the Commission said the judge should tell the parties about the son’s employment and recuse upon a defendant’s request. The short letter did not identify a numbered Canon or say recusal was automatic absent a request.
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: What relationship prompted the concern?
A: The judge’s son was employed as a manager by a corporation whose customers faced worthless-check charges.
Q: What disclosure did the majority call for?
A: The judge was to inform the parties of the son’s employment.
Q: When did the majority call for recusal?
A: On a defendant’s request.
Background and rules framework
The letter gives the Commission majority’s disclosure and request-based recusal answer for the stated family employment relationship. It cites no numbered Canon.
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 79-59: Daughter’s Tax Board Job and Appeals
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 80-73: Daughter’s School Board Employment
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 77-26
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
77-26
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 15, 1977
During a regular scheduled meeting of the Judicial Inquiry Commission on Friday, August 12, 1977, the members discussed your request for an advisory opinion regarding recusing yourself in the cases involving worthless check charges against several customers of a corporation of which your son is employed as a manager. It is the opinion of the majority of the members of this Commission that you should inform the parties involved in the cases that your son is an employee of this corporation and recuse yourself on defendant’s request. If the Commission can be of assistance to you in the future, please let us hear from you.
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