Does joint ownership of property with a former law partner require recusal when that lawyer 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
The judge still owned half of a building bought with a former law partner who represented parties before the judge. The Commission concluded that joint ownership alone did not require disqualification.
Quoting Bryars v. Bryars, the opinion explains that Canon 3C must be read with Canon 5C and that added circumstances could make a reasonable person question the judge’s impartiality.
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: Is joint property ownership alone disqualifying?
A: No. The Commission says that fact alone does not disqualify the judge.
Q: Can additional circumstances change the result?
A: Yes. The quoted court decision says recusal is required if added circumstances create a reasonable appearance that the judge cannot be impartial.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes Bryars v. Bryars, which reads Canon 3C(1) together with Canon 5C(1) and (2).
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(1), Canon 5C(1), Canon 5C(2).
Case cited:
- Bryars v. Bryars, 485 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986), on joint property ownership and recusal.
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 81-116, 83-172, and 83-198, cited for the joint-ownership conclusion.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 94-527
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
94-527
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 26, 1994
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 cases in which your former law partner represents a party where you continue to hold one-half interest in a building jointly purchased by you and the former partner while you were engaged in the practice of law. The correct rule was stated in Bryars v. Bryars, 485 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986): “A judge’s hearing of a matter whereby a party is represented by an attorney, or the law firm of an attorney, who jointly owns land with the trial judge is not a violation per se of Canon 3 C(l). That canon must be read, considered, and applied along with Canon 5 C(l) and (2). However, if other circumstances are added to the simple joint ownership of land by a judge and an attorney, it might appear to a reasonable person that the judge could not be impartial, and a recusal would be required.” The mere joint ownership of property by a judge and his former law partner does not cause the judge’s disqualification in cases in which the judge’s former law partner represents a party to a proceeding. Advisory Opinions 81-116, 83-172, 83-198. This 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