Does joint ownership of a law-office building with an attorney disqualify the judge from that attorney’s cases?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The judge and an attorney each owned half of a building where the attorney practiced. They shared mortgage liability, insurance, and taxes. The attorney paid no rent or other money to the judge for the office space.
The Commission concluded that the described arrangement did not violate the Canons and did not require the judge’s disqualification from cases involving the attorney. It considered Canon 5C on financial interests and Canon 3C on disqualification, and referred to earlier Opinions 81-115, 81-116, and 81-164.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1983, 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: Did the joint building arrangement itself require recusal?
A: No. The Commission found no disqualification on the stated facts.
Q: Was the attorney paying rent to the judge?
A: No. The opinion states the attorney paid no rent or other money to the judge for maintaining the office.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 5C to the judge’s financial interest and Canon 3C to cases involving the attorney.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 5C
- Canon 3C
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinion 81-115
- Alabama JIC Opinion 81-116
- Alabama JIC Opinion 81-164
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 83-172
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
83-172
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
March 2, 1983
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge violates the Canons of Judicial Ethics by continuing a business arrangement in which the judge and an attorney each own a one-half interest in the building in which the attorney maintains his private law practice. The ownership is a joint ownership and the attorney and the judge are jointly liable on the mortgage. Prior to ascending the bench, the judge maintained a separate law practice occupying one- half of the same building. The judge and the attorney each pay one-half the mortgage indebtedness, insurance and taxes on the property. The attorney does not pay any rent or other money to the judge for the continued maintenance of the attorney’s office in one-half of the jointly-owned building. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Canons of Judicial Ethics do not prohibit the business arrangement as described. A judge’s financial interests are governed by Canon 5C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Further, Canon 3C concerning the judge’s disqualification from sitting in proceedings in which the attorney is involved is applicable. However, in the business arrangement above described, it is the opinion of the Commission that the judge’s disqualification is not required and the canons are not violated. Similar questions have been addressed in Advisory Opinions 81-115; 81-116; and 81- 164. Very truly yours, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1983. 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