Must a judge recuse solely because an attorney who regularly practices before the court is a party?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1982. 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 sought clarification of an earlier opinion when an attorney was a party to a proceeding and might regularly practice before the judge.
The Commission read Canon 3C to require a case-specific disqualification inquiry. The attorney’s regular practice before the judge, by itself, did not require recusal. A personal bias or prejudice toward or against the attorney, or other facts reasonably calling impartiality into question, would require recusal.
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: Does an attorney party’s regular practice before the judge alone require recusal?
A: No. The Commission expressly rejected automatic recusal on that fact alone.
Q: What facts would require recusal?
A: Personal bias or prejudice toward or against the attorney, or other facts causing the judge’s impartiality reasonably to be questioned.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes Canon 3C on disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned and mentions the Commission’s earlier Opinion 99.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C
Other opinions cited:
- Opinion No. 99
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 82-136
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
82-136
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
April 8, 1982
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning clarification of Opinion No. 99 under certain circumstances. Specifically, you ask whether the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics would require disqualification of a judge in a proceeding where one of the parties to the proceeding is an attorney, who may or may not practice on a regular basis before the court. In Opinion 99 the Commission held that under specific circumstances enumerated therein Canon 3C mandates the disqualification of a judge. That Canon provides in pertinent part: “(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: (a) He has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;” It is the opinion of the Commission that disqualification under this canon must be considered on a case by case basis. The mere fact that a party to a proceeding is an attorney, who regularly practices before the judge in the proceeding, does not require the judge’s disqualification or recusal. However, should the judge have a personal bias or prejudice toward or against the attorney or should other facts be present, which would cause the judge’s impartiality to reasonably be questioned, recusal would be required. Very truly yours, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1982. 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