Must a judge recuse when a litigant nursing home and the judge’s mother-in-law’s residence share a parent company?

Plain-English summary

The judge’s mother-in-law lived in an assisted living facility connected by common ownership or operation to a nursing home defendant. The judge had disclosed the relationship, and the plaintiff sought recusal.

The Commission said common ownership alone did not disqualify the judge. Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii) would require disqualification if the mother-in-law had an interest that could be substantially affected by the case’s outcome. The opinion also notes that Commission advisory opinions are not binding on parties’ rights or remedies.

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: Does shared ownership alone disqualify the judge?

A: No. The Commission expressly rejects disqualification on that fact alone.

Q: What additional fact would require disqualification?

A: The mother-in-law would need an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding’s outcome.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii) to a relative’s potentially affected interest and cites Ex parte Balogun on the status of Commission opinions.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii).

Case cited:

• Ex parte Balogun, 516 So. 2d 606, 609 (Ala. 1987), on the effect of Commission advisory opinions.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 94-534: Brother’s Firm

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 94-530
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

94-530
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 should disqualify yourself under the following circumstances. Plaintiff Annie Evridge has filed a civil suit against Woodley Manor Nursing Home. Your wife’s mother is a resident of The Cedars, an assisted living domiciliary. Living Centers/Vari-Care, Inc. owns, operates, and/or has other proprietary interests in the operation of both Woodley Manor and The Cedars. You have disclosed your mother-in-law’s residency to the parties. The plaintiff has filed a motion to recuse. You state that you “would be able to afford both sides a completely fair, just and impartial trial.” Under the circumstances presented, it is the opinion of this Commission that you are not disqualified simply because the defendant nursing home and the facility in which your mother-in-law resides are either owned and/or operated by the same parent corporation. You would be disqualified if your mother-in-law had “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” Canon 3C(l)(d)(ii), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Although the Canons of Judicial Ethics have the force of law, the opinions of the Judicial Inquiry Commission are rendered in connection with the ethical conduct of the judge and “are not binding and do not affect a party’s rights or remedies.” Ex parte Balogun, 516 So.2d 606, 609 (Ala. 1987). This advisory opinion has been considered by and is the opinion of the entire commission.