Did the judicial Canons govern a former law clerk and bailiff’s practice announcement naming the judge without consent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1987. 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’s former law clerk and bailiff stated in a law-practice announcement that he had been associated with the judge. The former employee used the judge’s name without consent.
The Commission said the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics did not govern that situation. Its reason was that the former employee was no longer under the judge’s authority, so the judge did not control the announcement.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987, 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: Did the judge consent to use of the name?
A: No. The request stated that the judge’s name was used without consent.
Q: Why did the Commission decline to apply the Canons?
A: It said the judge had no authority over the former employee’s announcement after employment ended.
Background and rules framework
The opinion addresses the reach of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics but cites no numbered Canon.
Citations and references
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 87-287
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
87-287
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
February 2, 1987
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibit a judge’s former law clerk/bailiff from stating in his practice of law announcement that he was formerly associated with the judge. Under the facts presented, the judge’s name was used without the judge’s consent. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Canons of Judicial Ethics do not govern the above-stated fact situation. Since the attorney is no longer employed by the judge, the judge, whose conduct is governed by the Canons, exercises no authority over the announcement contents. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1987. 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