Must a judge who receives a county salary supplement recuse from every case involving the county?
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
A judge receiving a county salary supplement asked about litigation in which the county was a party.
The Commission said the supplement alone did not require recusal from every county case. Under Canon 3C(l)(c), disqualification could arise if the supplement was directly related to the matter or could be substantially affected by its outcome. The Commission described this as a fact-specific inquiry.
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 the county supplement always disqualify the judge?
A: No. The Commission rejected automatic disqualification on that fact alone.
Q: What financial connection might change the answer?
A: A direct connection between the supplement and the litigation, or a substantial effect of the outcome on it.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes Canon 3C(l)(c) on financial or other interests that could be substantially affected by a proceeding.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C
- Canon 3C(l)(c)
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 80-97
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
80-97
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 15, 1980
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge, who receives a county salary supplement, should recuse himself from litigation in which the county is a party. It is the opinion of the Commission that the mere receipt of a salary supplement from a county does not disqualify a judge from sitting in cases to which the county is a party. However, in instances in which the judge’s salary supplement is directly related to the matter in litigation or could be substantially affected by the outcome of the litigation, disqualification could occur. The opinion of the Commission is based upon the provisions of Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics; more specifically Canon 3C(l)(c) which provides that: (1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(c) He knows that he ... has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Under this Canon, there are undoubtedly many fact situations which could arise and which the Commission would have to consider on a case by case basis. However, the mere fact that a judge receives a salary supplement from the citizens of the county through the county governing body does not in and of itself disqualify a judge from sitting in all proceedings to which the county is a party. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
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