Does a judge’s spouse working for a city-county library require recusal from cases involving the city?

Plain-English summary

A judge’s spouse directed a city-county public library governed by an appointed board and funded by the city, county and state. Though the spouse’s written employment agreement was with the board, the city paid her as an employee so she could join its insurance plan.

The Commission said neither the employment nor the city payroll alone disqualified the judge from a case in which the city was a party. Under Canon 3C(1)(c), disqualification would follow if the spouse had an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding’s outcome. The Commission compared its Opinion 88-322, involving a spouse employed by a school board that was a party.

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 the city payroll alone require recusal?

A: No. The Commission said the spouse’s library employment and city payroll alone did not disqualify the judge.

Q: What would change the answer?

A: A spouse’s interest through the employment that could be substantially affected by the case outcome would require disqualification.

Q: What earlier opinion did the Commission compare?

A: Opinion 88-322, concerning a judge’s spouse employed by a school board that was a party.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Alabama Canon 3C(1)(c) to a spouse’s interest potentially affected by the proceeding. It also cites Ala. Code 1975, § 11-90-2 concerning appointment of the library board.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1)(c)

Statutes:

• Ala. Code 1975, § 11-90-2: library board appointments.

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 88-322: spouse’s employment by a party school board.

Cases:

• Pestar v. Remington Arms Company, Inc., 443 N.Y.S.2d 987, 988 (1981): family employment alone and a substantially affected interest.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 94-527: Former Partner and Joint Property

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 92-462
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

92-462
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 18, 1992
This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion from the Judicial Inquiry commission. Your question is whether you are disqualified from presiding over a case in which the city is a party under the following facts. Your wife is employed as the library director for the city-county public library board which is a quasi-governmental entity whose members are appointed by the county and city pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 11-90-2. Although your wife has a written employment agreement with the board, she is paid as a city employee so that she can participate in the city’s group insurance program. The board receives funds from the city, county, and state. It is the opinion of this Commission that you are not disqualified to preside over a case in which the city is a party merely because your wife is employed as the library director for the city-county public library and is paid as a city employee. You would be disqualified if your wife, by virtue of her employment, had an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” Canon 3C(l)(c), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. See Pestar v. Remington Arms Company, Inc., 443 N.Y.S.2d 987, 988 (1981) (mere fact that judge’s son was employed by the defendant did not involve an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the suit). In Advisory Opinion 88-322, this Commission held that a judge is not disqualified from a case where the Board of Education which employs his wife as a teacher is a named party unless that employment provides some interest which could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. This opinion has been approved by the Judicial Inquiry Commission. If you have any questions regarding this or any other matter please do not hesitate to contact me.