Did the 1980 opinion require recusal whenever a judge’s brother or his 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 request asked whether recusal, unless remitted, was required whenever the judge’s brother’s law firm represented a party. The Commission repeated its earlier advice that the judge must recuse when either the brother or another firm member represented a party. It cited Synopses 79-64, 80-68, and 80-69.
The official PDF marks Opinion 80-76 “[Overruled or Modified by 88-338].”
Currency note
The official PDF marks this opinion “[Overruled or Modified by 88-338].”
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 the original answer distinguish the brother from another firm member?
A: No. It required recusal in either situation.
Q: What later treatment does the official PDF report?
A: The PDF marks 80-76 overruled or modified by Opinion 88-338.
Background and rules framework
The 1980 letter invokes the Alabama Canons generally and earlier Commission synopses without identifying a numbered Canon. The official PDF marks this answer overruled or modified by Opinion 88-338.
Citations and references
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Synopses 79-64, 80-68, and 80-69, earlier advice on a relative or relative’s firm as counsel.
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 88-338: Later Relative-in-Firm Opinion
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 80-88: Brother or Partner as Counsel
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 80-76
- Later modifying opinion: Advisory Opinion 88-338
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
80-76
[Overruled or Modified by 88-338]
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
June 4, 1980
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge must recuse himself (unless remitted) in any proceeding in which his brother’s law firm represents a party to the proceeding. As stated in Synopses 79-64, 80-68, and 80-69, it is the opinion of the Commission that under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge must recuse himself in any proceeding in which his brother or a member of his brother’s law firm represents a party to the proceeding. Copies of the opinions are enclosed as you requested.
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