Is a judge disqualified when a lawyer appearing before the judge also employs the judge’s spouse as a real estate agent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. 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’s wife worked on commission in a real estate office run by an attorney who regularly appeared before the judge. She did not work in the attorney’s law office.
The Commission concluded that her employment alone did not require disqualification. It said other circumstances could, including a direct financial interest of the judge or spouse dependent on the attorney’s success, and directed the judge to assess whether impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C.
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: Does the real estate employment alone disqualify the judge?
A: No. The Commission said the bare employment relationship did not cause disqualification.
Q: What additional circumstance did the Commission identify?
A: A direct financial interest of the judge or spouse dependent on the attorney’s success was its example of a fact that could require disqualification.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics and cites earlier Commission opinions involving relatives employed by attorneys.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 80-66, 84-217, 84-134, and 81-125, relatives employed by attorneys or law firms.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 85-232
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
85-232
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
April 29, 1985
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge may ethically act on matters for an attorney/real estate broker, who regularly practices law before the judge, if the judge’s wife is a sales agent or associate broker working for the lawyer/real estate broker on a commission basis. We understand from your question that the judge’s wife works for a real estate broker, who is also an attorney. The wife is not employed in the attorney’s law office but is employed in his real estate office. Your specific question is whether the judge is disqualified from sitting in any proceeding in which the judge’s wife’s employer represents a party to the proceeding. It is the opinion of the Commission that the mere fact that the judge’s wife works as a real estate broker or sales person in an attorney’s real estate business does not cause the judge to be disqualified in proceedings in which the attorney represents a party. This opinion is based upon our previous applications of Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. The Commission has considered a number of similar fact situations. In Opinion 80-66, the Commission found that the mere fact that a judge’s wife was employed as bookkeeper for an attorney did not cause the disqualification of the judge in proceedings in which the attorney represented a party. See also Opinion 84-217 (judge’s sister-in-law works as a legal secretary); Opinion 84-134 (judge’s child is legal secretary); and Opinion 81-125 (judge’s relative is a paralegal employed by a law firm). In each of these Opinions the Commission found that the mere fact of the employment of the judge’s relative did not cause the judge’s disqualification in proceedings in which the firm represented a party. However, facts and circumstances could arise which would cause disqualification, i.e., the judge or his spouse has a direct financial interest which is dependent upon the attorney’s success. The judge must himself assess all of the facts and circumstances. If he finds that facts arise which cause his impartiality to reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C, then the judge must disqualify himself. Yours very truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1985. 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