Must a judge continue to recuse when former counsel in a completed Judicial Inquiry Commission matter appears?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Attorneys who previously represented the judge before the Judicial Inquiry Commission later appeared in court. The Commission had quickly found no ethics violation, and representation had ended.
The opinion says recusal is required while counsel represents the judge in a pending, unrelated Commission matter. Once that representation and matter ended, no ongoing disqualification remained on these facts. It also found no duty to disclose a former ground for disqualification that no longer existed.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994, 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: What if the attorney currently represents the judge before the Commission?
A: The opinion says the judge is disqualified while that unrelated Commission representation is pending.
Q: Did recusal continue after representation ended here?
A: No. The Commission found no extraordinary circumstances warranting continued disqualification.
Q: Must the judge disclose the past representation?
A: No. The opinion says there is no ethical duty to disclose a past ground that no longer supports disqualification.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 3C(1) to current representation and cites earlier Commission opinions on the end of disqualification and disclosure.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(1), Canon 3C.
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 92-443, 92-446, and 93-483, on representation, continued disqualification, and disclosure.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 94-516
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
94-516
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
March 25, 1994
This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion from the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Your question is whether you should recuse yourself from presiding over those cases in which appear the attorneys who represented you before the Judicial Inquiry Commission. In this case, the complaint was filed before the Commission and the Commission issued a finding of no ethical violation in approximately six weeks. Your actions in the matter were not disputed, and there was no need for any independent investigation by the Commission. The rule is that under Canon 3C(l), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, a judge is disqualified from sitting in any proceeding in which an attorney for one of the parties represents the judge in an unrelated matter pending before the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Advisory Opinion 92-443. However, once that disqualification is removed, your recusal is not required unless there are extraordinary circumstances present. Advisory Opinion 92-446. Here, the disqualification ceased to exist once the Commission returned its finding of no ethical violation and your attorneys ceased to represent you before the Commission. There are no extraordinary circumstances present which would require your continued disqualification under Canon 3C. The facts in this case are not such as would cause a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Although a judge has an ethical obligation to disclose to counsel appearing before him any ground for disqualification of which he is aware, Advisory Opinion 93-483, here there is no longer any basis for disqualification. There is no ethical obligation to disclose a ground of past disqualification. This opinion has been considered by the entire Commission and is the opinion of the Commission.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1994. 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