Did a judge’s relative working as a paralegal for counsel’s firm automatically require recusal?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked about a case in which the judge was related within the fourth degree to an employee of a firm whose lawyer represented a party.

The Commission said Canon 3C(l) could require recusal when impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A relative’s paralegal work for the firm alone did not require it. The judge had to assess the proceeding, the relationship with the employee, and the employee’s connection to the proceeding.

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: Was the relative’s paralegal job automatically disqualifying?

A: No. The Commission expressly said that fact alone did not require recusal.

Q: What additional facts mattered?

A: The proceeding, the judge’s relationship with the employee, and that employee’s relationship to the case.

Background and rules framework

The opinion quotes Canon 3C(l) on recusal when impartiality might reasonably be questioned and says its specific instances are not exhaustive.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(l)

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 82-134: Judge’s Child in Counsel’s Office

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 81-125
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

81-125
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 22, 1981
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge is disqualified from sitting in a proceeding in which the judge is related within the fourth degree by consanguinity or affinity to an employee of a law firm, a member of which represents a party to the proceeding. It is the opinion of the Commission that disqualification of a judge may be required in a proceeding under the circumstances which you describe. This opinion is based upon Canon 3C(l) which provides in pertinent part that: “A judge should disqualify himself in any proceeding in which ... his impartiality might reasonably be questioned ...” This Canon then sets out some instances in which disqualification is specifically required. Most pertinent here are those instances set out in Canon 3 C(l). These instances are not exclusive of all other instances in which a judge related to a person in some other way connected to the proceeding might be required to disqualify himself. Other instances would be too numerous for this Commission to attempt to set out in detail. Therefore, a judge must himself assess the facts and circumstances surrounding the proceeding, his relationship with the employee of the firm, and the employee’s relationship to the proceeding to determine whether the judge should disqualify himself. However, the mere fact that the judge’s relative is a paralegal working for the firm does not require the judge’s disqualification. Particular fact situations may, of course, be presented to the Commission for an advisory opinion. Very truly yours,