May a judge give Martindale-Hubbell a confidential recommendation for a lawyer who often appears before the judge?

Plain-English summary

The Commission considered a confidential recommendation to Martindale-Hubbell concerning a lawyer who frequently appeared before the judge. It said the judge could provide it when the directory specifically requested information, the judge did not volunteer the recommendation, and the directory kept it confidential from the lawyer.

Under those facts, the Commission found no danger of using judicial prestige to advance another’s private interests in violation of Canon 2C. It pointed to its earlier Opinion 83-177 and analogous opinions from other judicial ethics bodies.

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: Does frequent appearance before the judge bar the recommendation?

A: No. The Commission allowed the requested recommendation even for a lawyer who appeared frequently.

Q: What conditions mattered?

A: The judge did not volunteer the recommendation, it answered a specific request, and it remained confidential and undisclosed to the lawyer.

Q: Which Canon did the Commission discuss?

A: Canon 2C, concerning use of judicial prestige for another’s private interests.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 2C to a requested confidential directory recommendation and cites Alabama JIC Opinion 83-177.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 2C

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 83-177: confidential lawyer recommendations.
• Nebraska Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 90-2: confidential recommendation.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 92-464: Engineering and Surveying Seminars

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 92-448
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

92-448
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 14, 1992
This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion from the Judicial Inquiry Commission. A judge may provide Martindale-Hubbell, Inc. with a confidential recommendation with respect to a lawyer who practices before the judge even where the attorney appears before the judge on a frequent basis. Where the judge’s recommendation is not volunteered by the judge but is restricted to a specific request for information, and where the judge’s recommendation is kept confidential and is not disclosed to the attorney, the danger of misusing the prestige of office to advance the private interests of another in violation of Canon 2C, Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, is not present. See Nebraska Ethics Advisory Committee opinion 90-2. This Commission has previously approved such confidential recommendations in Advisory Opinion 83-177. This appears to be an accepted ethical practice. See Florida Committee on Standards of Conduct Governing Judges, opinion 73-13; Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion 56; Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal & Discipline, opinion 133; New York Advisory committee on Judicial Ethics, opinion 89- 119; Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Committee of the Pennsylvania conference of State Trial Judges, opinion 21; Washington, D.C. Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, opinion 87-10.