Did a judge’s proposed financial winddown of a former law firm violate the Alabama Canons?

Plain-English summary

A judge planned to transfer an interest in a former law firm to a partner without future payments for past file work. Remaining ties included temporary trustee roles, a building transfer and a deferred compensation note payable in December 1990 and unrelated to pending contingency matters. The judge planned to recuse from cases involving the former firm or partner while any ties remained.

The Commission found no violation under the plan as described. It viewed the steps as a good faith effort to manage financial interests without impairing impartiality or duties, and to minimize disqualifying cases under Canons 5C(1) and 5C(3).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, 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 approve the stated winddown plan?

A: Yes. It found no Canon violation under the facts and safeguards described.

Q: What recusal did the judge plan?

A: The judge would recuse from matters involving the former firm or partner while the remaining financial and trustee ties continued.

Background and rules framework

The opinion cites Canons 5C(1) and 5C(3) concerning a judge’s financial interests, impartiality and minimizing disqualification.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 5C(1)
• Canon 5C(3)

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 89-354: Retired Judge’s Law Practice

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 89-351
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

89-351
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
January 31, 1989
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether your plans for the dissolution of a judge’s law practice would violate the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Under the facts presented, the judge and his partner have reached an agreement whereby the judge will transfer all of his interest in the firm to his partner. There will be no future payment to the judge for past work performed on any files. However, there are four matters which remain of some concern to the judge. These are:

1. The judge continues to serve as trustee and plan administrator for his
   former firm’s professional corporation pending IRS action on a present request to the IRS to terminate the present professional corporation plan and distribute the assets.
2. The judge is presently serving as a trustee of his firm’s corporate profit
   sharing plan. He will resign this position at the end of the fiscal year when his share of the plan benefits will be paid over to him. The fiscal year ends April 30, 1989.
3. The judge owns the building in which his law firm has leased space. By
   the terms of the separation agreement, the land and the building are being conveyed to the judge’s former law partner. The mortgage is being assumed by the purchaser.
4. The law firm and the judge’s partner will execute and deliver to the judge
   a promissory note evidencing deferred compensation which will be paid to the judge in December 1990. This compensation is in no way connected to the outcome of any pending contingency fee files. Further, the judge will recuse himself from any matter involving his former law firm or partner so long as any of the above continue to exist. It is the opinion of the Commission that the above referenced matters handled a s described by the judge do not violate any provision of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, but represent a good faith effort by the judge to manage his financial interests so that they do not “tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, or exploit his judicial position.” (Canon 5C(l) of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics.) In addition, it appears that the judge has taken the actions necessary to “manage his ... financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which he is disqualified”, as required under Canon 5 C(3).