Did Canon 3B(3) apply to an attorney member of the Court of the Judiciary with personal knowledge of another judge’s misconduct?

Plain-English summary

An attorney member of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary described personal knowledge suggesting a circuit judge had violated the Canons. The first two questions asked whether Canon 3B(3) applied to the attorney member and whether it called for appropriate disciplinary measures.

The Commission answered both questions yes. It said the Canons gave no exemption to part-time or special judges from Canon 3B(3) when they had personal knowledge of unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer. The shared PDF labels this joint response “78-50 and -51”; its separate Opinion 78-52 answer addressed the question about privileged knowledge.

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 Canon 3B(3) apply to the attorney member?

A: Yes. The Commission said part-time or special judges had no exemption.

Q: How did the Commission answer the question about initiating disciplinary measures?

A: Affirmatively, for unprofessional conduct of which the judge had personal knowledge.

Q: Did this answer decide how privileged knowledge should be treated?

A: The shared PDF assigned that third question to Opinion 78-52, separately from the joint 78-50 and 78-51 answer.

Background and rules framework

The joint response for 78-50 and 78-51 applies Canon 3B(3) to part-time or special judges with personal knowledge of unprofessional conduct. The shared PDF treats the privileged-knowledge question as a separate answer.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3B(3)

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 78-51: Duty to Address Known Misconduct
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 78-52: Privileged Knowledge and Reporting
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 90-390: Bar Grievance and Defense Counsel
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-618: Judge’s Lawyer Grievance Letter

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 78-50
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

78-50
78-51
78-52
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 13, 1978
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion. In your request, you state that you are presently serving as an attorney member of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary and also engage in the practice of law. You further state that you are the attorney in your firm having the primary responsibility for handling a matter concerning a long-time regular client of your firm. The matter is one against a Circuit Judge. During your representation of this client, you have become aware of and have personal knowledge of facts which lead you to suspect that a Circuit Judge has violated one or more of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. With regard to the above facts you ask our opinion concerning the following questions: “A. Are the provisions of Canon 3B(3) of the Canons of Judicial Ethics applicable to me? B. Should I take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against the judge for unprofessional conduct of which I have personal knowledge by bringing the facts known to me to your attention? C. If the answer to B is affirmative should I take or initiate such measures even if the knowledge I have is privileged, i.e., within the attorney-client privilege (see DR 1-103(A) and DR 4-101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the Alabama State Bar).” 78-50 and -51 It is our opinion that your questions A and B must be answered in the affirmative. The canons provide no exemption for part-time or special judges from the provisions of Canon 3B(3) requiring judges to initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge has personal knowledge. 78-52 Your third question is answered in the negative. It is our opinion that Canon 3B(3) does not require a judge to take or initiate disciplinary measures against another judge or attorney when the knowledge of unprofessional conduct in the possession of the judge is privileged under the attorney-client relationship. To hold otherwise would seriously restrict the part-time or special judge’s ability to perform as effective counsel for his client. We do consider, however, that Canon 3B(3) places upon the attorney judge a burden to make full disclosure to his client in an effort to obtain the client’s permission for reporting the judge’s conduct.