Would appointing a spouse’s relative by marriage as a substitute court reporter violate the judicial Canons?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked whether the wife’s relative by marriage could serve as a substitute court reporter. The request cited a state statute barring reporters related to the trial judge within the fourth degree and a case about relationships by affinity.

The Commission said its advisory authority covered the Canons, so it could neither confirm nor deny the judge’s reading of the statute. Under Canon 2A’s duty to comply with law, it described a general rule that a spouse’s relative by affinity is not thereby related to the other spouse. It found no ethical violation for a judge who followed that general rule, while noting the lack of an Alabama case on the precise point and the need to account for developing law.

Currency note

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 Commission decide the reporter was legally eligible under the statute?

A: No. It expressly declined to confirm or deny the statutory interpretation.

Q: What ethics conclusion did it reach?

A: A judge following the general affinity rule described in the opinion would not commit a Canons violation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 2A’s duty to respect and comply with law. It cites Alabama Code § 12-17-270 and Norris v. Presley as sources raised in the request, while declining to resolve the statutory question.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 2A

Statute cited:

• Alabama Code § 12-17-270, court-reporter kinship restriction as described in the request.

Case cited:

• Norris v. Presley, 292 Ala. 155, 290 So. 2d 643 (1974), raised in the request on affinity.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 88-344: Probation Office Hiring Judge’s Sister-in-Law

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 88-328
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

88-328
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
February 29, 1988
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge’s wife’s relative by marriage may serve as a substitute court reporter for the judge. The judge points out that under Section 12-17-270, Code of Alabama, 1975 a court reporter may not be related to the trial judge within the fourth degree by marriage or by blood. You further point out that it would appear under Norris v. Presley, 292 Ala. 155, 290 So.2d 643 (1974), that the court reporter being the affine of the judge’s wife is not related to the judge by either blood or marriage. The judge asks the Commission to confirm the above interpretation of the law and to address whether the appointment would constitute a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The advisory opinion authority of the Commission extends only to the proper application of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Commission can neither confirm not deny your interpretation of the applicable statute. However, under Canon 2A of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge must respect and comply with the law. The general rule appears to be that as between a husband and wife a person related to the wife by affinity is not related to the husband. The same is true of the affines of the husband through his blood relations. There do not appear to be any cases in Alabama on this specific point. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Commission that a judge, who follows the general rule in this respect, would not commit any ethical violation. The judge should remain ever mindful of developing law and act accordingly. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION