Does a judge’s child working as a secretary for counsel to a party automatically require recusal?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked about sitting in a case when the judge’s child worked as a secretary for an attorney representing a party.

The Commission said disqualification might be required under Canon 3C(l) if impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The child’s secretarial job at the firm alone did not require recusal. The judge had to assess the proceeding, the relationship with the employee, and the employee’s connection to the case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982, 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 secretarial job alone disqualifying?

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

Q: What did the Commission say to examine?

A: The facts of the proceeding, the judge’s relationship with the employee, and the employee’s relationship to the proceeding.

Background and rules framework

The opinion quotes Canon 3C(l)’s language on impartiality reasonably being questioned and says its specific examples of disqualification are not exhaustive.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(l)

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 82-133: Judge’s Daughter Employed by Litigant

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 82-134
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

82-134
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
March 26, 1982
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’s child is employed as a secretary by an attorney who 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 3C(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 child is a secretary 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,