May a judge serve on a local school committee recommending grading and student-evaluation policies?

Plain-English summary

A judge was invited onto a local school-system policy committee to recommend changes to student grading and evaluations.

The Commission said Canon 5G discouraged the appointment because it concerned policy outside improvement of the law and courts, but did not categorically prohibit it. Canon 3 required judicial duties and impartiality to take priority.

The judge could not accept if the committee would recommend policies on matters, or to people, likely to appear before the judge, creating reasonable doubt about impartiality. The opinion called for assessing the judge’s jurisdiction and likely cases before serving.

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: Was the committee role automatically forbidden?

A: No. The Commission said it was discouraged but not specifically prohibited.

Q: When would service be prohibited?

A: If the work would reflect adversely on impartiality or interfere with judicial duties, including likely court matters or participants as described in the opinion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canons 5G and 3 to appointment to a governmental policy committee and judicial duty and impartiality concerns.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 5G
• Canon 3

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 91-429: Police Department Advisory Committee

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 89-388
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

89-388
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 12, 1989
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether, under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, a judge may serve as a member of a policy committee for a school system which will recommend proposed policy changes regarding student grading and student evaluations for the local school system. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics specifically discourage, but do not prohibit, a judge’s serving on a policy making committee for a local school system. However, if such service would reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality or otherwise interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, then such service would be prohibited. This opinion is based on the provisions of Canon 5G and Canon 3 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Canon 5G provides: It is desirable that a judge should not accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, or other position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice or unless required by law ... Canon 3 provides: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of His Office Impartially and Diligently The judicial activities of a judge take precedence over his other activities
...
It has often been the practice for local education officials to seek community advice in setting school policy. To this end, policy advisory committees are set up to invite a broad base of input into local school policies which will be recommended to local boards of education by superintendents of education. Upon reviewing the applicable canons, especially Canon 5G as set out above, it is apparent that service on such bodies is discouraged but not specifically prohibited. However, prior to accepting such service a judge must look also to the provisions of Canon 3. He must not accept the appointment if, upon examining his jurisdiction and the matters likely to come before his court, he finds that the committee will be recommending policy on matters or to persons likely to come before him in his judicial capacity. If the matters considered 89-388 Page 2 or the persons to whom the recommendations are made are likely to come before the judge, then his participation on the committee could cause reasonable doubt as to the judge’s ability to decide those matters or to treat those persons impartially. Therefore, judges must give heavy consideration prior to deciding to participate in this discouraged activity. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION