When does an appearance by a clerk-bailiff’s brother’s law firm disqualify the judge?

Plain-English summary

The judge’s clerk-bailiff had a brother who was an associate at a local law firm. The question was disqualification when that firm represented a party before the judge.

The Commission said the judge was disqualified if the brother participated in any way in the proceeding. It reaffirmed Opinion 83-190, which addressed a clerk-bailiff’s spouse at a firm and said disqualification there did not apply if the clerk took no part in the case and did not discuss it with the judge.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, 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 participation triggered disqualification in this opinion?

A: The Commission said the judge was disqualified if the clerk-bailiff’s brother participated in any way in the proceeding.

Q: Which earlier opinion did the Commission reaffirm?

A: Opinion 83-190, concerning a clerk-bailiff’s spouse employed by an appearing law firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion cites Canon 3C(l) on disqualification and reaffirms Alabama JIC Opinion 83-190 on a related clerk-bailiff family relationship.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(l)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 83-190, clerk-bailiff’s spouse at an appearing firm.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 85-239: Son at Appearing Firm

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 85-231
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

85-231
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
April 3, 1985
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether ethical considerations are involved where the brother of the judge’s clerk-bailiff is an associate with a local law firm. The immediate ethical implications arising in this fact situation are those concerning disqualification in proceedings in which the brother’s law firm represents a party to the proceeding. It is the opinion of the Commission that the judge is disqualified from sitting in any proceeding in which the law firm of the judge’s clerk/bailiff’s brother represents a party if the brother of the judge’s clerk-bailiff participates in any way in the proceeding. Previously, in Opinion 83-190, this Commission considered a similar situation. There the clerk-bailiff’s spouse was employed by a local law firm. The Commission held that, due to the relationship of a trial court judge with his law clerk, the judge is disqualified from sitting in any proceeding in which the law clerk’s spouse or spouse’s firm appeared as counsel. See Canon 3C(l) of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. The Commission further held that the disqualification does not apply if the law clerk takes no part in the proceeding and does not discuss any aspect of the proceeding with the judge. Opinion 83-190 is hereby reaffirmed. The same reasoning applies in the present fact situation. Should you have any specific questions relating to any of the other Canons, the Commission will be happy to address them. Yours very truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION