Is a judge automatically disqualified when an appearing firm employs the judge’s sister-in-law as a legal secretary?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. 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 firm representing a party employed the judge’s brother’s wife as a legal secretary. The judge asked whether this family employment required disqualification.
The Commission said the employment alone did not. Citing Canon 3C(l) and earlier opinions, it said the judge must assess the circumstances of each proceeding, the relationship with the employee, and the employee’s relationship to the matter.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984, 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 sister-in-law’s employment alone enough?
A: No. The Commission said it did not itself cause disqualification.
Q: What had to be assessed?
A: The opinion calls for considering the proceeding, the judge’s relationship to the employee, and the employee’s relationship to that proceeding.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 3C(l) and cites earlier Commission opinions addressing a judge’s daughter employed as secretary and a judge’s child employed as paralegal.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(l)
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 82-134 and 82-125, family members employed by firms.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 84-217
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
84-217
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 1, 1984
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge is disqualified from sitting in a proceeding in which one of the parties is represented by the law firm which employs the judge’s brother's wife as a legal secretary. It is the opinion of the Commission that the mere fact of the employment by the firm of the judge’s sister-in-law does not cause the judge’s disqualification in a proceeding in which the law firm represents a party. This opinion is based upon the provisions of Canon 3C(l) and previous opinions of the Commission. In Opinion 82-134, the Commission addressed the same question except there the secretary was the judge’s daughter. There, the Commission held that the relationship may, but does not necessarily, lead to disqualification. In each proceeding the judge must 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 disqualification is required. See in accord Opinion 82-125 where the judge’s child was employed as a paralegal by a law firm. Very truly yours, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1984. 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