Did the judge’s adult son and daughter-in-law working as substitute juvenile-home parents automatically violate the Canons?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1979. 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 request asked whether a district judge’s adult son and daughter-in-law could work every other weekend as substitute house parents at a juvenile attention home within the judge’s territory. A public corporation supervised and controlled the home.
The Commission found no per se violation of the Canons. It drew attention to Canons 3C(l)(d) and 3D on disqualification and said recusal might be required if the son or daughter-in-law became a material witness or party in a juvenile proceeding before the judge.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1979, 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 employment itself violate the Canons?
A: No. The Commission found no per se violation on the described facts.
Q: When did the Commission say recusal might be required?
A: If the son or daughter-in-law became a material witness or party in a juvenile proceeding before the judge.
Q: Which provisions did it identify?
A: It named Canon 3C(l)(d) and Canon 3D concerning disqualification.
Background and rules framework
The letter distinguishes the family members’ employment from a later proceeding in which they could be a material witness or party. It points to Canons 3C(l)(d) and 3D without declaring automatic disqualification.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(l)(d)
- Canon 3D
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 80-73: Daughter’s School Board Employment
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 81-103: Daughter’s Teacher Salary and School Suit
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 79-63
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
79-63
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
September 4, 1979
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion as to whether it would be a conflict of interest for the adult son and daughter-in-law of a district court judge to be employed as substitute house parents every other weekend for a juvenile attention home within the territorial jurisdiction of the judge. You state that the home is under the supervision and control of a public corporation. It is the opinion of the Commission that there exists no per se violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics in the foregoing factual situation. However, should the son and daughter-in-law accept the job as substitute house parents, the judge should be ever mindful of the provisions of Canon 3C(l)(d) and Canon 3D regarding disqualification. In the event that the judge’s son and daughter-in-law might be either a material witness or a party in a juvenile proceeding before the judge, recusal may be required.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1979. 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