Must a judge recuse from a divorce proceeding when a party sits on a housing authority that pays rent to the judge’s company?

Plain-English summary

In a divorce proceeding, a defendant sat on a local housing authority. That authority contracted to subsidize rent on property owned by a corporation whose sole shareholder was the judge. The contract supplied the full rental amount for one year.

The Commission required the judge’s disqualification. Applying Canons 1 and 3C and citing In re Sheffield, it said the financial relationship between the authority and the judge’s company could give a person of ordinary prudence a reasonable basis to question impartiality.

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 require recusal from the divorce proceeding?

A: Yes. It said the authority’s beneficial rental contract with the judge’s company created a reasonable question about impartiality.

Q: What test did the Commission use?

A: Citing In re Sheffield, it asked whether an ordinarily prudent person who knew the facts would have a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.

Background and rules framework

The opinion quotes Canon 1 on judicial integrity and independence and Canon 3C(1) on disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It applies the ordinary-prudence test from In re Sheffield.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 1
• Canon 3C

Cases:

• In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala. 1984), ordinary-prudence test for questioning impartiality.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 92-455: Property Co-ownership and Recusal

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 88-343
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

88-343
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
October 28, 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 facts presented are as follows: The proceeding before the court is part of a divorce action. The defendant is one of five board members of a local Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has entered into a contract to subsidize the rental of certain properties owned by a corporation in which the judge is the sole shareholder. Under the rental contract provided to the Commission, the Housing Authority is subsidizing the full amount of the rental for a period of one year. It is the opinion of the Commission that the judge is disqualified from sitting in the proceeding in question. This opinion is based on Canons 1 and 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Those Canons provide in pertinent part as follows: Canon 1 A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective. Canon 3C (1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned ... Taken together, these Canons require that judges take great care to determine whether by sitting in a certain proceeding their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Our State Supreme Court has determined that disqualification occurs under Canon 3C where facts are shown which make it reasonable for members of the public or a party to question a judge’s 88-343 Page 2 impartiality. In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala. 1984). The test to be applied is would a person of ordinary prudence knowing all of the facts known to the judge find that there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality. See In re Sheffield, supra. In the present instance, a financial relationship beneficial to the judge exists between the judge’s wholly owned corporation and the defendant, as a Housing Authority Board member. It is reasonable to presume that a member of the public would find that this relationship causes the judge’s impartiality to reasonably be questioned as set out above. For this reason, the judge should disqualify himself in the instant matter. Very truly yours, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION