Must a judge recuse when appearing counsel’s spouse works at the firm representing the judge’s family partnership?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The plaintiff’s lawyer was married to a member of a firm representing the judge’s family partnership, but the plaintiff’s lawyer practiced at a different firm. The Commission found no disqualification on these facts.
It distinguished the rule concerning an attorney directly representing the judge or spouse in a pending matter from indirect law-firm and family ties that do not automatically require recusal.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993, 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 spouse’s membership in the family partnership’s firm alone require recusal?
A: No. The Commission found no disqualification on the stated facts.
Q: Would direct representation of the judge in a pending matter be different?
A: Yes. The opinion describes that as a ground for disqualification under Canon 3C(1).
Background and rules framework
The opinion invokes Canon 3C(1) and earlier Commission opinions on counsel representing a judge and connections among law firms.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(1).
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 92-443, 88-336, and 79-61 are cited on representation and family-firm relationships.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 93-494
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
93-494
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
July 23, 1993
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 plaintiff is represented by an attorney whose husband is a member of the law firm which represents your family’s partnership. The plaintiff’s attorney is not a member of the same law firm as her husband. It is the opinion of this Commission that, based on these particular facts, your disqualification is not required. The provisions of Canon 3C(l), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibit a judge from sitting in any proceeding in which an attorney for one of parties represents either the judge or the judge’s spouse in an unrelated pending matter. Advisory Opinion 92-443, 88-336. Ordinarily, a judge’s disqualification regarding one member of a law firm does not extend to other members of that same firm. Advisory Opinion 92-443. Disqualification is not automatically required in a case in which one of the parties is represented by the law partner of the spouse of the judge. Advisory Opinion 79-61. This opinion has been considered by the entire Commission and is the opinion of the Judicial Inquiry Commission.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1993. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace