Must a judge recuse when the judge’s spouse is a part-time dietary consultant for a defendant hospital?

Plain-English summary

The judge’s spouse was a self-employed dietitian who consulted at a defendant hospital about three days a month. The civil claim concerned medical equipment used on a child, had no dietary connection, and did not name the spouse as a party.

The Commission concludes that the judge is not disqualified on those facts. It finds no reasonable question about impartiality or appearance of impropriety from the spouse’s limited association. An interest of the spouse that could be affected by the outcome would require disqualification, but none appeared in the request.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, 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 the spouse’s consulting alone require recusal?

A: No. The Commission finds no disqualification on the unrelated claim and employment facts submitted.

Q: What additional interest could change the result?

A: The opinion says disqualification would be required if the spouse had an interest that could be affected by the proceeding’s outcome.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canons 2 and 3C(l) to the appearance and impartiality questions, and Canon 3C(l)(c) to a spouse’s interest affected by the case.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 2, Canon 3C(l), Canon 3C(l)(c).

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinions 80-66, 84-217, 84-134, 81-125, 85-232, 86-286, 88-322, and 88-345, spouse employment and party association.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-564: Son-in-Law at Parent Company
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-588: Spouse’s Adverse Lawyer

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 95-540
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

95-540
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
February 10, 1995
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 civil action under the following circumstances: A minor has brought a civil action against a local hospital, the attending physician, and others for injuries allegedly resulting from the use of a certain “electro surgical unit: and/or “circumcision clamps.” The judge’s wife is a registered dietitian, and is self-employed as a consulting dietitian. In that capacity she provides counseling service to the dietary staff and patients at the defendant hospital approximately three days a month. The defendant physician may have occasionally referred a patient to her for dietary consulting or instructions. The judge’s wife is not named as a party defendant and the cause of action does not have any connection with any dietary matter. It is the opinion of this Commission that you are not disqualified under these circumstances. The Commission finds no ground for the appearance of impropriety and no cause to reasonably question your impartiality in this matter. Canon 2, 3C(l), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. See Advisory Opinions 80-66, 84-217, 84-134, 81-125, 85-232 (spouse’s mere association or employment with law firm does not disqualify judge in cases in which firm member appears); 86-286 (judge not disqualified where spouse a deputy sheriff); 88-322 (fact that judge’s wife is teacher employed by city board of education does not per se cause the judge’s disqualification in all proceedings in which board of education is a party); 88-345 (“Employment of a judge’s spouse by a governmental agency does not disqualify the judge from sitting in all cases involving that agency. A more direct involvement, a direct interest, or a personal knowledge would be required on the part of the judge or his spouse for disqualification to occur.”) Disqualification would be required by the fact of your wife’s employment if your wife had an interest which could be affected by the outcome of the civil proceeding. Canon 3C(l)(c). However, no such interest appears to exist under the circumstances presented. This opinion has been approved by and is the opinion of the entire Commission.