Does a litigant’s threat to complain to the Judicial Inquiry Commission disqualify the judge?

Plain-English summary

A litigant phoned a judge’s office and began discussing a pending case. The judge told the litigant to contact counsel and refused to discuss the matter. The litigant then said he would contact the Judicial Inquiry Commission.

The Commission concluded that those circumstances did not require the judge to recuse. It said litigants’ statements or actions toward judges during proceedings, without more, should not control judicial assignments.

The opinion drew a limit: if the judge actually felt threatened and became influenced by the litigant’s conduct, the judge had to disqualify himself. It cited Canons 1, 3, and 3C and Advisory Opinion 87-292.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, 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 announced complaint itself require recusal?

A: No. The Commission found no disqualification on the facts presented.

Q: When did the Commission say recusal would be required?

A: If the judge actually felt threatened and became influenced by the litigant’s remarks or actions.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canons 1, 3, and 3C to judicial independence, impartiality, and recusal. It cites Advisory Opinion 87-292 as consistent authority.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 1
• Canon 3
• Canon 3C

Other authorities cited:

• Alabama JIC Advisory Opinion 87-292, cited as consistent with the response.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 90-403: Litigant’s Suit Against Judge

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 90-391
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

90-391
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
January 31, 1990
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 proceeding in which one of the litigants informs the judge that the litigant plans to file a complaint against the judge with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission. Under the facts presented, the judge answered his office telephone to discover that the litigant was on the phone. The litigant began to discuss his case. The judge informed the litigant that a judge cannot discuss pending matters with a litigant and that the litigant should contact his attorney. The litigant then informed the judge that he was going to contact the Judicial Inquiry Commission. It is the opinion of the Commission that the foregoing circumstances do not cause the judge’s disqualification in further proceedings involving the litigant. This opinion is based on the provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics and prior opinions of this Commission. There are three provisions of the Canons which are particularly applicable here. Canon 3 sets forth the standard to be followed by judges in performing the duties of the judicial office. That Canon provides: "A Judge Should Perform the Duties of His Office Impartially and Diligently." More specifically, Canon 3C protects the impartiality of judicial decision making by providing for judicial disqualification where a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. And further, Canon 1 imposes a duty upon judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Taken together, these provisions place upon a judge a duty to perform the office of judge with independence from influences other than the proper administration of justice and with integrity, diligence and impartiality. In meeting these high standards, it has long been recognized that, without more, a litigant’s actions toward a judge or statements to a judge during the course of a judicial proceeding do not cause the judge to be disqualified. To hold otherwise would allow a litigant to control judicial proceedings by making disqualifying statements whenever the litigant became dissatisfied with the course of the proceedings. Such would cause utter chaos in the conduct of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. Of course, should the judge actually feel threatened and become influenced by a litigants’ remarks or actions, he must immediately disqualify himself from further participation in the proceedings. See in accord with this opinion, advisory opinion 87-292.