May a municipal judge continue hearing cases when the judge’s wife is an assistant city attorney but does not appear before the judge?
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
One of four municipal judges asked whether he could continue serving after his wife became an assistant city attorney. Her office prosecuted in municipal court, but she would not appear before him.
The Commission found no violation on those facts. Applying Canon 3C and earlier opinions about a relative employed in a prosecutor’s office, it said the judge’s disqualification was limited to cases in which the relative participated. It left any decision about continuing in office after a Canons violation to the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.
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 appearances by other city attorney staff disqualify the judge in every case?
A: No. The Commission applied its prior staff-attorney reasoning and limited disqualification to cases in which the judge’s wife participated.
Q: Did the Commission decide whether the judge could remain in office after a violation?
A: No. It identified that as the Alabama Court of the Judiciary’s prerogative.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 3C’s relationship and financial-interest disqualification provisions and cites earlier Commission opinions involving a relative on a district attorney’s staff.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 80-89, 81-101, 83-171, and 86-277, on a judge’s relative serving in a prosecutor’s office.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 87-305
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
87-305
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
June 29, 1987
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a person may continue to sit as a municipal court judge under certain circumstances. Under the facts presented, the judge is one of four municipal court judges in an Alabama municipality. The judge’s wife has recently become an assistant city attorney for that municipality. Her office prosecutes cases before the municipal court. The judge’s wife will not appear before her husband in any cases but other members of the city attorney’s office will appear. Based on those facts, you ask whether the judge may continue to serve. It is the prerogative of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary to determine whether a judge may continue in office if he has violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. This Commission is authorized to issue advisory opinions concerning the application of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Therefore, this advisory opinion is addressed to whether a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exists under the facts presented. It is the opinion of the Commission that under the facts presented there is no violation of the Canons. The provisions of the Canons most applicable in this instance are those including disqualification. Those provisions are found in Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Canon 3C provides that a judge is disqualified from sitting in any proceeding in which he or his spouse is related within the fourth degree to an attorney appearing in the proceeding or has a financial interest in the outcome of a proceeding. This Commission has previously ruled that this provision does not require disqualification of a judge in all cases involving members of a district attorney’s staff where the judge’s relative is an assistant district attorney. The judge’s only disqualification is in those cases in which his relative participates. See advisory opinions 80-89, 81-101, 83-171 and 86-277. It is the opinion of the Commission that the reasoning of these advisory opinions is applicable in the instant case. 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