May a judge take paid data-processing consulting work for a university outside the judge’s jurisdiction?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A judge asked about paid data-processing consulting for a university outside the judge’s jurisdiction that had not appeared and was unlikely to appear in the judge’s court.
The Commission found no prohibition on the proposed work under Canon 5C. It saw no apparent disqualification from ordinary cases but said the judge must decline the contract if the work impaired impartiality or judicial duties.
As a concrete example, the opinion said consulting that delayed cases or judicial decisions or forced court-date changes would interfere with judicial duties.
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: Could the judge accept the described consulting contract?
A: Yes, on the facts and limits set out in the opinion.
Q: What change would make the work impermissible under this analysis?
A: If it caused case delays, changed court dates, or adversely reflected on impartiality, the judge should not engage in it.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 5 and quotes Canon 5C(1) through (4) on financial activity, compensation, minimizing disqualification, and gifts or favors. Its holding centers on the duties and impartiality limits in 5C.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 5
- Canon 5C
- Canon 5C(1)
- Canon 5C(2)
- Canon 5C(3)
- Canon 5C(4)
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 89-382
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
89-382
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
October 2, 1989
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge may be employed as a data processing consultant by an institution of higher learning located outside the judge’s jurisdiction and which has never had and is not likely to have any cases coming before the judge. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Canons of Judicial Ethics do not prohibit the described activity. This opinion is based on the provisions of Canon 5. More specifically, Canon 5C regulates a judge’s extra-judicial financial activities. That Canon provides in pertinent part as follows: (1) A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, or exploit his judicial position. (2) Subject to the requirements of subsection (1), a judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity including the operation of a business. (3) A judge should manage his investments and other financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which he is disqualified. (4) Neither a judge nor a member of his family residing in his household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone if it reflects expectation of judicial favor. Under the clear wording of this Canon, a judge may engage in remunerative activity so long as the activity does not “interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties,” reflect adversely on his impartiality, or cause him to be disqualified in cases coming before his court. In this instance, it does not appear that the suggested business activity will cause the judge to be disqualified in cases which would ordinarily come before him. Therefore, the primary concern is with whether the activity will interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s judicial duties or reflect on the judge’s impartiality. Neither appears to be the case here. However, the judge should remain mindful of those provisions and decline the consulting contract if either of the factors are present. 89-382 Page 2 For example, if the activity becomes too time consuming and causes the judge to delay cases or judicial decisions or if it causes him to change court dates, the activity would interfere with the performance of his judicial duties and should be avoided. Further, if factors arise which reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, he should refrain from engaging in the consulting work. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1989. 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