Was recusal required when the judge’s son or another lawyer in his son’s firm represented a party?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1980. 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 already received an answer requiring disqualification when the judge’s lawyer son represented a party. The remaining questions concerned other members of the son’s firm and whether the son’s status in the firm or the nature of the proceeding changed the answer.
The Commission said disqualification was required when either the son or a member of his firm represented a party, regardless of whether the son was a partner or salaried employee. It said the disqualification could be remitted through Canon 3D.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1980, 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 it matter whether the son was a partner?
A: No. The Commission said the standard was the same if the son was a partner or a salaried employee.
Q: Did the answer cover another lawyer in the son’s firm?
A: Yes. It required disqualification when a member of the son’s firm represented a party.
Q: Did the Commission allow remittal?
A: Yes. It referred to the procedure in Canon 3D.
Background and rules framework
The letter addresses disqualification because the judge’s son or another member of the son’s firm represents a party. It cites Canon 3D for remittal, without naming a numbered disqualification subsection.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3D
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 80-69: First Cousin’s Spouse and Firm
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 80-76: Brother’s Firm and Recusal
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 80-68
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
80-68
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
February 13, 1980
The Commission has considered your remaining questions concerning the disqualification of a judge in circumstances where the judge’s son represents a party in a proceeding before the judge or is affiliated with a law firm which represents a party in a proceeding before a judge. As you will recall, the Commission answered your first question by an earlier opinion holding that a judge should disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his attorney-son represents a party to the proceeding. Your remaining questions relate to specific circumstances such as the nature of the proceeding before the court and the nature of the attorney-son’s affiliation with a law firm, a member or associate of which represents a party to the proceeding. It is the opinion of the Commission that a judge should disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his son or a member of his son's law firm represents a party to the proceeding. It matters not whether the son is a partner in the firm or merely a salaried employee of the firm. The standard for disqualification remains the same. The disqualification may be remitted through the procedure set out in Canon 3D.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1980. 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