Could a new judge or immediate family receive rent from former law partners still using the judge’s office building?

Plain-English summary

A newly appointed judge owned the office building used by former law partners. The partners proposed continuing to rent it and pay its taxes, insurance, maintenance, and upkeep; the request also proposed routing rent to the judge or immediate family.

The Commission concluded that a financial benefit to the judge or immediate family from that rental was prohibited under Canon 5C(l). It also said the arrangement disqualified the judge in proceedings in which the former partners’ firm was interested, because impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C(l). The shared letter separately answered a second question as Opinion 81-116.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, 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: Would routing the rental income to family resolve the issue?

A: No. The Commission treated financial benefit to the judge or immediate family as prohibited in this arrangement.

Q: What proceedings required disqualification?

A: Those in which the former law partners’ firm was interested, under the Commission’s Canon 3C(l) analysis.

Background and rules framework

The letter applies Canons 5C and 3C to financial dealings and recusal involving former law partners.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C
• Canon 5C
• Canon 5C(l)
• Canon 3C(l)

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 82-130: Judge’s Family Renting Office Space to Counsel

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 81-115
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

81-115
81-116
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
June 2, 1981
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning the application of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics to certain financial and business dealings between a newly-appointed circuit judge and his former law partners. You specifically ask for an opinion regarding two factual situations. Under the first set of facts, you state that the newly-appointed circuit judge owns the building in which the judge and his former partners occupied office space. The former law partners wish to continue to occupy the building as their law offices. All parties wish to continue the previous arrangement by which the professional association pays the rent and pays all taxes, insurance, maintenance and upkeep on the property. You suggest that this arrangement would not require disqualification of the judge in cases in which his former law partners have an interest since the judge’s interest in this rental arrangement would not be one that could be substantially affected by the outcome of any such proceeding, Canon 3C(l)(a), and the judge’s impartiality might not reasonably be questioned, Canon 3C(l)(a), due to the small amount of the rent. In the event that the suggested arrangement is held to be prohibited, you suggest alternate solutions in which either the judge or members of his immediate family would receive the rental income either directly or in trust. The business arrangements in question are governed not only by Canon 3C but also by Canon 5C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Canon 5C(l) and (2) provide that: “(1) A Judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, or exploit his judicial position. (2) Subject to the requirement of subsection (1), a judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, ...” It is the opinion of the Commission that the business arrangement in question, whereby either the judge or his immediate family receives financial benefit from the rental property, is prohibited under Canon 5C(l). Such a business or financial arrangement would certainly “tend to reflect adversely” on the judge’s impartiality in any proceeding in which the judge’s two former law partners might appear. It is further the opinion of the Commission that in any event such a business arrangement involving either the judge or his children would cause disqualification of the judge in all proceedings in which the law firm is interested in that the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3C(l). Thus, under Canon 5C(l), such a business arrangement would tend to interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s judicial duties. 81-115 Your second set of facts involves a piece of property jointly owned by the judge and his former law partners. It does not appear from your request that the judge and his former partners receive any income from the property. Instead, the only business arrangement between the judge and the attorneys involves the shared monthly mortgage payments on the property and taxes and insurance payments. The property is presently listed with a real estate agent to be sold. It is the opinion of the Commission that, under this set of circumstances, this business arrangement is not prohibited by the Canons of Judicial Ethics so long as no problems arise as to the payment of the mortgage indebtedness or the taxes or insurance. 81-116 Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION