Could a part-time municipal judge accept an insurer’s assignment to defend the city where the judge served?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A part-time municipal judge regularly represented an insurance carrier. The carrier proposed hiring the judge to represent one of its insureds, the municipality where the judge served.
The Commission quoted Canons 2 and 2A and two statutes on municipal employment and contracts. It accepted the Attorney General’s view that the separate city-insurer and insurer-lawyer contracts did not violate those statutes, then found no appearance of impropriety because the carrier had regularly retained the judge before the city matter.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986, 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 prior relationship mattered?
A: The insurer regularly retained the judge to represent other insureds before this city assignment.
Q: How did the Commission treat the statutes?
A: It recited the Attorney General’s view that the two separate contracts did not prohibit the arrangement.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 2’s appearance rule and Canon 2A’s public-confidence standard after discussing the cited municipal-contract statutes.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 2
- Canon 2A
Statutes:
- Alabama Code §§ 11-43-12 and 12-14-30(d) (1975), municipal contract and employment provisions quoted.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 86-266
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
86-266
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
June 3, 1986
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a part-time municipal court judge may accept employment by an insurance company to represent its insured, the city which the attorney serves as judge. The judge is regularly retained by the insurance carrier to represent other insureds. The question presented is governed by Canon 2 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. That Canon provides: “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of his activities.” Canon 2A further provides: “A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Further, in reviewing this issue there are two applicable sections of the Alabama Code which should be considered. These are Sections 11-43-12 and 12-14-30(d). Section 11-43-12 provides: “No ... officer ... of the municipality shall be directly or indirectly interested in any work, business or contract, the expense price or consideration of which is paid from the treasury (of the municipality) ...” Section 12-14-30(d) is directed specifically toward municipal judges and provides: “... No judge shall be otherwise employed in any capacity by the municipality during his term of office.” In reviewing this issue, the Attorney General has opined that since there are two separate contracts involved, that of the city with the insurance carrier and that of the carrier with the attorney-judge, these statutes do not prohibit the attorney-judge’s employment by the insurance carrier to represent the city. 86-266 Page 2 Given the Attorney General’s application of the pertinent statutes, the issue presented here is whether the attorney-judge’s employment raises the appearance of impropriety. While this standard is even more stringent than the statutes, in this instance where the attorney-judge was retained regularly by the insurance carrier prior to being retained to represent the city, we find no impropriety in his being hired by the insurance company. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1986. 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