Does recusal continue after a former law partner leaves a jointly owned building and stops providing income to the judge?

Plain-English summary

Earlier Opinion 81-115 had required disqualification when a judge jointly owned a building with former partners whose firm occupied it and paid the property expenses. The Commission also reconfirmed Opinion 81-116.

This opinion addressed a change: one attorney would leave both the firm and building. The Commission said the earlier disqualification rested on income or financial benefit tied to the occupying lawyer’s success. If the judge no longer received income from the departing attorney, the judge was no longer disqualified from cases involving that attorney under the stated arrangement.

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: What change ended the stated disqualification?

A: The attorney left the firm and building, and the judge received no further income from that attorney.

Q: Which prior opinion did the Commission reconfirm?

A: It expressly reconfirmed Opinion 81-116.

Background and rules framework

The letter applies Canons 3C(l) and 5C(l) and distinguishes the financial arrangement in Opinion 81-115.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(l)
• Canon 5C(l)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 81-116, reconfirmed
• Alabama JIC Opinion 81-115, earlier building-income recusal

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 83-172: Joint Building Ownership

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 82-164
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

82-164
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
November 1, 1982
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion reconfirming our opinion no. 81-116. That opinion is hereby reconfirmed. You further request an opinion concerning whether our opinion no. 81-115 is affected by the fact that the judge’s former law partners have now dissolved their association and one of the former partners will be moving out of the building owned by the judge and both former law partners. In opinion no. 81-115, the Commission considered the fact situation in which a judge engaged in a business arrangement with his former law partners in which the judge and his former law partners jointly owned the building occupied by the law firm composed of the former partners. The law firm payed the taxes, insurance, maintenance and upkeep. The Commission held that such a business arrangement would cause the judge to be disqualified in any proceedings in which the law firm represented a party. Disqualification is required by Canons 3C(l) and 5C(l). It is apparent that the holding of opinion no. 81-115 is based upon the fact that the judge receives income as a financial benefit from an attorney or law firm occupying the building, and that the financial benefit or income may depend on the financial success of the attorney or law firm. Thus, it is the opinion of the Commission that if one of the attorneys, who jointly owns the building with the judge, leaves the firm and the building, and the judge no longer receives any income from that attorney, the judge would no longer be disqualified from hearing proceedings in which that attorney is involved. Sincerely,