Could a judge hear a hospital negligence case after previously serving on the hospital’s board?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1978. 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 had left a hospital board about seven and a half months before the events underlying a negligence case against the hospital. The judge said the suit would not involve board policies or equipment decisions made during the judge’s service, and both sides would be told of the prior association.
The Commission found no violation on the stated facts. It said Canon 3C would not be violated if the judge lacked personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts and reasonably concluded that impartiality was not in question.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1978, 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 the former board position alone require recusal?
A: The Commission found no Canon violation on the detailed facts supplied.
Q: What factual knowledge condition did it identify?
A: The judge must have no personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.
Q: What impartiality condition did it identify?
A: The judge’s impartiality must not reasonably be called into question.
Background and rules framework
The letter quotes Canon 3C’s disqualification standard, including personal bias and personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, and applies it to the judge’s former hospital-board service.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 78-53: Judge’s Lawyer’s Partner Appearing
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 79-59: Daughter’s Board Clerkship and Appeals
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 78-41
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
78-41
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 16, 1978
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether any potential breach of the Canons of Ethics exists in your presiding over a case involving a negligence action against a certain hospital. It appears that you sat on the Board of Directors of the Hospital from May 1969 until May 1975. You state that in your best judgment the lawsuit will not involve any hospital policy set while you were a member of the Board of Directors. Nor does the suit involve any purchase or approval for purchase of any hospital equipment which was obtained while you were a member of the Board. The events out of which the action arise occurred February 18, 1976 or about seven and one-half months after your association with the hospital ended. Essentially, your request for an opinion concerns whether under the above set of facts you would be required to recuse yourself as presiding judge in this case in the event that attorneys and parties on both sides are informed of your past association with the hospital and make no objection to your presiding. Under these circumstances this Commission finds no violation of the Canons of Ethics. Under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, recusal is covered in Canon 3C. Canon 3C provides in pertinent part as follows: “(l) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) He has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding....” It is our opinion that under the facts as you have stated them, if you have no personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts and if, in your opinion, your impartiality might not be reasonably questioned, then you would not be in violation of Canon 3C.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1978. 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