Must a judge recuse from every case involving a school board that employs the judge’s spouse as a teacher?

Plain-English summary

A city Board of Education employing the judge’s wife as a teacher intervened in litigation involving a jointly operated technical school. The judge asked whether the spouse’s employment disqualified the judge whenever the Board was a party.

The Commission said employment alone did not require recusal in every Board case. Under Canon 3C, disqualification from the employment arose only when the spouse had an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding. It compared Opinion 80-73 about a judge’s daughter employed by a board.

Currency note

The official index and PDF filename identify 88-322, while the PDF’s printed header reads “87-322.” Its letter is dated January 25, 1988. This opinion was issued in 1988, 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 teaching job automatically disqualify the judge from all Board cases?

A: No. The Commission rejected automatic disqualification from the spouse’s employment alone.

Q: What would require recusal on the employment ground?

A: An interest of the spouse that the outcome could substantially affect.

Background and rules framework

The opinion quotes Canon 3C(1)(c) on a spouse’s financial or other substantially affected interest and cites Opinion 80-73 on a relative’s board employment.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C
• Canon 3C(1)(c)

Other opinion cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 80-73, on a judge’s daughter employed by a board.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 88-345: Spouse’s DHR Employment and Recusal

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 88-322
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

87-322
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
January 25, 1988
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 certain proceeding. The judge’s wife is a public school teacher, whose employing Board of Education has intervened in an action presently pending before the judge. The action was initiated by another Board of Education which in cooperation with the employing Board operates a local Technical School. The action is a declaratory judgment wherein the court is requested to adjudicate certain disputed issues existing between the two Boards of Education on the one hand, and the director of the Technical School on the other. It is the opinion of the Commission that the fact that a judge’s wife is a teacher employed by a City Board of Education does not per se cause the judge’s disqualification in all proceedings in which the City Board of Education is a party. Disqualification is required by the fact of such employment only where the judge’s wife has an interest which could be affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Judicial disqualification is governed primarily by Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. That canon provides in pertinent part that: “(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(c) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse ... has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;” Thus, under the facts presented, the judge’s wife’s employment would cause the judge’s disqualification only if that employment provides some interest which could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. This opinion is in accord with advisory opinion 80-73 wherein the Commission advised that the employment of a judge’s daughter would not per se cause the judge’s disqualification in proceedings involving the Board as a party unless the daughter had some direct interest in the proceedings.