Is a judge disqualified when a relative within the fourth degree sits on a county commission involved in the case?
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 Commission addressed proceedings naming individual county commissioners, the commission itself, or the county as a party. A commissioner was related within the fourth degree to the judge or the judge’s spouse.
It concluded that Canon 3C(l)(d)(i) required disqualification in all three situations. When commissioners were named individually or as members of the commission, the judge was related to a party. When the commission or county was named, the judge was related to an officer of a party. The Commission said the disqualification could be remitted under Canon 3D’s specific provisions.
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 answer change if only the county was named?
A: No. The Commission said the related commissioner was then an officer of a party, requiring disqualification.
Q: Could the disqualification be remitted?
A: Yes. The Commission said it could be remitted under the specific provisions of Canon 3D.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes Canon 3C(l)(d)(i) on relationships within the fourth degree to a party or an officer of a party, and refers to Canon 3D on remittal.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(l)(d)(i)
- Canon 3D
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 83-186
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
83-186
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
June 22, 1983
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge is disqualified from sitting in any of several proceedings involving the county commission on which a person, who is related to the judge or the judge’s spouse, is a member. These proceedings are:
- The county commissioners are named individually as parties,
- The county commission is a party, and
- The county is a party.
It is the opinion that a judge, who is related or whose spouse is related to a county commissioner “within the fourth degree”, is required to disqualify himself in all three of the given situations. This disqualification is required under Canon 3C(l)(d)(i) of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. That Canon provides that: “(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which ... (d) He or his spouse, or a person within the fourth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse if such person: (i) is named a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of a party.” In this instance, the judge is related to a party if the commissioner is named individually or as a member of the county commission. He is related to an officer of a party if the commission or the county is named as a party. This disqualification may be remitted under the specific provisions of Canon 3D. Yours very truly, 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