Must a judge recuse from every case involving the Department of Human Resources because the judge’s spouse works there?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The judge’s spouse had recently begun working for the Alabama Department of Human Resources. The Commission considered whether the judge was disqualified whenever DHR was a party, whenever it was otherwise involved, or only when the spouse had a more direct connection.
It found that agency employment alone did not disqualify the judge from every DHR case. Recusal was required where the spouse had been personally involved as an employee, was likely to be a material witness, or was likely to receive a known direct or indirect benefit such as from a class salary dispute. The Commission relied on Canon 3C and reconfirmed its similar answer in Opinion 86-286 about a spouse employed by a sheriff’s department.
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: Does any DHR involvement automatically disqualify the judge?
A: No. The Commission said the spouse’s employment by the agency alone did not require recusal in every case involving it.
Q: When did the Commission say recusal was required?
A: When the spouse was personally involved, likely to be a material witness, or likely to receive a known direct or indirect benefit.
Q: Which earlier opinion did the Commission reaffirm?
A: Opinion 86-286, concerning a judge whose spouse worked for a sheriff’s department.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 3C’s impartiality and spouse-interest provisions. It quotes Canon 3C(1)(c) and Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii)–(iii) concerning financial or other interests and material witness status.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C
- Canon 3C(1)(c)
- Canon 3C(1)(d)
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission Advisory Opinion 86-286, on a judge whose spouse worked for a sheriff’s department.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 88-345
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
88-345
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 21, 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 certain proceedings involving the Alabama Department of Human Resources where the judge’s wife recently has become employed. Under these circumstances the specific questions are whether the judge is disqualified in the following instances: (a) in all cases wherein the Department of Human Resources is a party; (b) in all cases wherein the Department of Human Resources is involved (though not a party to the suit); (c) in only those cases in which the spouse is involved or has been personally involved as a caseworker for the Department. It is the opinion of the Commission that under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge is disqualified from sitting in only those cases in which his wife personally has been involved as an employee of the Department; is likely to be called as a material witness; or is likely to receive some known direct or indirect benefit, i.e., a class salary or pay raise dispute. This opinion is based primarily on Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Canon 3C provides in pertinent part that: (1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his ... impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (c) He knows that ... 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; (d) He or his spouse ...
(ii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; 88-345 Page 2 (iii) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding; This Canon was considered by the Commission in Advisory Opinion 86-286. There, the Commission advised that this Canon does not require disqualification in all cases concerning the Sheriff’s Department where the judge’s wife is employed by that Department. The Commission further advised that for disqualification to occur a more direct involvement or interest would be necessary. The Commission hereby reconfirms that opinion. In conclusion, employment of a judge’s spouse by a governmental agency does not disqualify the judge from sitting in all cases involving that agency. A more direct involvement, a direct interest, or a personal knowledge would be required on the part of the judge or his spouse for disqualification to occur. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1988. 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