Must a judge recuse because a party claims to have filed a prior Judicial Inquiry Commission complaint that the judge did not know about?

Plain-English summary

A party claimed to have filed a prior complaint against the judge with the Judicial Inquiry Commission. The judge had not known of it before a recusal motion, and no complaint was pending.

The Commission found no required disqualification on those facts under Canon 3C. It relied on earlier opinions finding that a litigant’s prior unsuccessful suit against the judge, or a lawyer’s adverse disciplinary testimony, did not by itself create a reasonable question about impartiality.

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 alleged past complaint alone require recusal?

A: No. The Commission said the unknown, nonpending complaint did not require disqualification.

Q: Did the opinion address an active complaint known to the judge?

A: No. The stated facts involved no pending complaint and no prior knowledge by the judge.

Background and rules framework

The opinion quotes Canon 3C’s reasonable-question standard and applies earlier Commission opinions concerning past adverse relationships.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 83-176, prior unsuccessful suit by a litigant against a judge.
• Alabama JIC Opinion 84-220, prior adverse testimony by counsel in a disciplinary matter.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 87-307: Prior Attorney Recommendation

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 87-292
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

87-292
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
February 4, 1987
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge is disqualified from sitting in a proceeding where one of the parties has previously filed a complaint against the judge with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission. The judge states that he had no knowledge of any such complaint prior to the recusal motion. No such complaint is presently pending against the judge. It is the opinion of the Commission that the above-stated facts do not present a situation in which the judge’s disqualification is required. Judicial disqualification is governed by Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. In pertinent part that Canon provides as follows: “A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned ...” In considering this Canon, the Commission has previously found that the mere fact that a litigant has previously unsuccessfully sued a judge does not cause the judge’s disqualification. See Advisory Opinion 83-176. Nor does the fact that counsel for a party has previously testified adversely to the judge in a disciplinary action against the judge cause the judge’s disqualification. See Advisory Opinion 84-220. In both of these opinions the Commission found that the mere fact of the previous existence of these adverse relationships did not cause the judge’s impartiality to reasonably be questioned. The same reasoning is applicable here. The mere fact that a litigant claims to have previously filed a complaint, of which the judge has no knowledge, does not cause the judge’s disqualification in a pending proceeding involving that litigant. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION