When must a judge recuse if a lawyer appearing before the judge runs against the judge for reelection?
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
The Commission distinguished the timing of an opposing lawyer’s appearance. It said the judge should disqualify from a case when the lawyer first appeared after announcing a campaign for the judge’s seat. If a lawyer already appeared in a pending case and then announced candidacy, disqualification was not automatic.
Actual personal bias or facts that reasonably question impartiality could still require recusal. Rumors of candidacy alone did not trigger the opinion’s rule; the lawyer had to be an announced candidate.
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 opposing candidate first appears after announcing?
A: The Commission says the judge should disqualify from that case.
Q: What if the lawyer was already counsel when candidacy was announced?
A: The opinion says the announcement does not automatically disqualify the judge.
Q: Do rumors of a campaign count?
A: No. The opinion requires an announced candidacy.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies judicial disqualification principles to a judge’s campaign opponent and cites Clontz v. State and earlier advisory opinions. It does not identify a numbered Canon.
Citations and references
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinion 84-219 and Michigan Advisory Opinion JI-23, discussed on campaign-related disqualification and announcement.
Case cited:
- Clontz v. State, 531 So. 2d 60, 62 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988), on counsel’s political opposition to the judge.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 94-520
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
94-520
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 request is whether a judge is disqualified from presiding over a case in which a party is represented by an attorney opposing the judge in the judge’s political campaign for re-election. It is the opinion of this Commission that a judge should disqualify himself from any case in which a party is represented by an attorney opposing the judge in the judge’s political campaign for re-election where the initial appearance of the attorney on behalf of the party in the case occurred after the attorney had announced his candidacy for the judge’s position. On the other hand, a judge is not automatically disqualified if an attorney in a pending suit already before the judge announces his candidacy against the judge. See Clontz v. State, 531 So.2d 60, 62 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) (judge not required to recuse himself in probation revocation hearing even though defense counsel was judge’s political opponent absent a showing that judge failed to maintain impartiality or that defendant did not receive a fair trial). “Where a party or the party’s attorney acts toward a judge in a manner calculated to create bias or prejudice, disqualification of the judge ordinarily will not be required. A party should not be able to engage in ‘judge-shopping’ by manufacturing bias or prejudice that previously did not exist.” J. Shaman, S. Lubet, J. Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics §5.06 at 106 (1990) However, if facts and circumstances exist arising out of the campaign, which cause the judge to harbor a personal bias or prejudice toward either the attorney or the clients of the attorney because of his representation, or if other facts or circumstances exist which cause the judge’s impartiality to be reasonably questioned then the judge may be disqualified. Advisory Opinion 84-219. In connection with the above, we hold that the attorney must be an announced candidate. Rumors of the candidacy will not require disqualification. See Michigan Advisory Opinion JI-23, May 16, 1990. This advisory opinion has been considered by and is the opinion of the entire 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