May a judge send bar commissioners a character recommendation for a lawyer facing discipline?
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 judge asked about writing to the Board of Bar Commissioners in support of an attorney facing possible or completed discipline. Opinion 80-70 barred the letter before the commentary was amended. Opinion 80-84 addressed the amended commentary and gave advice this opinion later overruled in part.
The Commission said a character recommendation was not prohibited per se, even if the lawyer supported might appear before the judge. The decisive restriction concerned the letter’s recipient: the judge could not write it if that recipient was engaged or likely to be engaged in proceedings before the judge. The Commission overruled Opinion 80-84 to the extent it conflicted.
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: Was every character recommendation barred?
A: No. The Commission said Canon 2C did not per se prohibit a letter about personal experience, character, or ability.
Q: Whose court involvement mattered under this opinion?
A: The recipient’s, rather than automatically the supported lawyer’s, current or likely proceedings before the judge.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the amended commentary to Canon 2C and distinguishes the person receiving a recommendation from the person recommended.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 2C
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinion 80-70, earlier prohibition on a voluntary character letter.
- Alabama JIC Opinion 80-84, overruled to the extent inconsistent with this recipient-based reading.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 86-269
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
86-269
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
July 29, 1986
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion regarding whether under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge may submit a letter to the Board of Bar Commissioners in support of an attorney against whom disciplinary action either has been taken or is being contemplated. In seeking this opinion, you request that we review Advisory Opinions 80-70 and 80-84. In Advisory Opinion 80-70 the Commission advised that such a letter would be in the nature of voluntary testimony as a character witness and would thus be prohibited under Canon 2C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. The Commentary to Canon 2C was then amended, effective May 7, 1980, to provide: “... This canon does not per se prohibit a judge from writing a letter of recommendation disclosing personal information of someone’s experience, character or ability. Such letter, however, should not be written if the recipient is engaged in litigation before the judge or it is likely that the recipient will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the Court.” In Advisory Opinion 80-84 the Commission noted the amendment and advised that the suggested letter was not necessarily prohibited by Canon 2C. The Commission further advised that such a letter should not be written if the person in whose support it was written appeared or was likely to appear in proceedings which ordinarily would come before the judge. We have reviewed Advisory Opinion 80-84 and it is the opinion of the Commission that Canon 2C does not per se prohibit: “... writing a letter of recommendation disclosing personal information of someone’s experience, character or ability.” Nor is such letter prohibited if the person in whose support it is written has been or is likely to be engaged in proceedings which ordinarily come before the judge. However, such a letter is prohibited if the recipient of the letter is engaged or is likely to be engaged in proceedings before the judge. 86-269 Page 2 The commentary to Canon 2C makes this distinction between the recipient of the letter and the person in whose support the letter is written. This distinction appears to be made for the reason that it is the recipient of the letter who would feel that by acting favorably on the judge’s recommendation he could influence the judge. Conversely, the recipient might feel coerced by the judge’s letter if the recipient of the letter is actively engaged in litigation before the judge. To the extent that this opinion is in conflict with Advisory Opinion 80-84, that opinion is hereby specifically overruled. 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