Did the Commission approve particular acts by a judge on the board of a partly owned corporation?

Plain-English summary

The judge partly owned a corporation and served on its board. The judge asked how far participation could go without conflicting with judicial ethics.

The Commission said it could not answer questions about specific acts or activities. It quoted Canon 5’s restrictions on fiduciary service, financial dealings, investments, gifts, and use of judicial information, then directed the judge to those provisions when assessing participation in the business.

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 Commission give a blanket approval for corporate participation?

A: No. It said it could not answer questions about specific acts or activities.

Q: Which Canon did it identify?

A: Canon 5, including its fiduciary and financial-activity restrictions.

Q: Did it resolve whether the corporation would appear before the judge?

A: No. It quoted a limitation for fiduciary service likely to involve proceedings ordinarily before the judge, without deciding that factual question.

Background and rules framework

The letter quotes Canon 5 and its parts on fiduciary service and financial activities. It leaves the permissibility of particular corporate acts unanswered.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 5

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 79-60: Judge as Family Bank President
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 80-65: Family Partnership With State Lease

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 78-43
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

78-43
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 16, 1978
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has reviewed your request for an opinion concerning to what extent a District Judge may participate in a corporation partly owned by him and in which he is a member of the board of directors. Your question cannot be answered by this Commission as to specific acts or activities in which a judge serving in the extra- judicial capacity which you describe may engage. However, for your benefit we draw your attention to Canon 5 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, the pertinent canon in this instance. Canon 5 provides that: “A judge Should Regulate His Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with His Judicial Duties.” Under part D. of Canon 5 it is provided that a judge should not serve as a fiduciary, “...if such service will interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties. As a fiduciary a judge is subject to the following restrictions: (1) He should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary he will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before him. (2) While acting as a fiduciary a judge is subject to the same restrictions on financial activities that apply to him in his personal capacity.” The restrictions on financial activities are set out in Part C of Canon 5. These include: (1) A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, or exploit his judicial position. (2) Subject to the requirements of subsection (1), a judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity including the operation of a business. (3) A judge should manage his investments and other financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which he is disqualified. (4) Neither a judge nor a member of his family residing in his household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone if it reflects expectation of judicial favor. (5) For the purposes of this section ‘member of his family residing in his household’ means any relative of a judge by blood or marriage, or a person treated by a judge as a member of his family, who resides in his household. (6) Information acquired by a judge in his judicial capacity should not be used or disclosed by him in financial dealings or for any purpose not related to his judicial duties. It is the opinion of this Commission that you should carefully study the above-cited provisions of Canon 5 in determining to what extent you may participate in the business enterprise in question so as to avoid conflict with the Canons.