How long did Opinion 92-446 say the judge should recuse from cases involving a particular law firm?

Plain-English summary

The Commission issued this follow-up to Opinion 92-433 while withholding the case’s specific facts under Rule 5 of its procedures. Its public text therefore does not identify the law firm or explain the underlying events.

On the confidential facts known to the judge, the Commission found a continuing reasonable basis to question impartiality whenever a party was represented by a member of that firm. It directed the judge to continue recusing from such cases until January 1993. It noted that time and improvement in the local legal atmosphere could reduce the appearance concern.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, 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: Which law firm did the opinion identify?

A: The public opinion does not name it; the Commission kept the underlying facts confidential.

Q: What period of recusal did the Commission specify?

A: Until January 1993 for any case where a party was represented by a member of the firm in question.

Q: Did the opinion suggest the concern could diminish?

A: Yes. It said passage of time and improvement in the local legal atmosphere should reduce appearances of partiality and impropriety.

Background and rules framework

The public opinion applies a reasonable-person impartiality test and cites In re Sheffield and the Commission’s procedures Rule 5 on confidential facts. It does not cite a numbered Alabama Judicial Canon.

Citations and references

Cases:

• In re Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350, 356 (Ala. 1984): reasonable basis for questioning impartiality.

Other authorities cited:

• Rule 5, Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Inquiry Commission: confidentiality.

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 92-433: preceding advice.
• Florida Advisory Opinion 86-9: cited comparison.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 92-454: Spouse’s DHR Lawyer

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 92-446
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

92-446
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
July 10, 1992
This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion from the Judicial Inquiry Commission in connection with Advisory Opinion 92-433 issued on April 24, 1992. In order to uphold the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Commission, this advisory opinion will not detail the specific facts involved in this case which have been communicated to you in confidence by separate opinion. Rule 5, Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Inquiry Commission. It is the finding of this Commission that, under the present circumstances, a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position knowing all of the facts known to the judge would find that there still remains a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality in any case where a party is represented by any member of the particular law firm in question. See In re Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350, 356 (Ala. 1984). With the improvement of the legal atmosphere within the judicial community of the county, the passage of time should reduce the appearances of partiality and impropriety. Therefore, it is the finding of this Commission that you should continue to recuse yourself in any case in which a party is represented by any member of the law firm in question until January of 1993. See Florida Advisory Opinion 86-9, May 13, 1986.