Does helping appoint one personnel-board member disqualify judges from a salary case involving that board?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1995. 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 county and a city-county personnel board sought a declaration about probation-officer salaries. Circuit judges and a probate judge collectively appointed one of the board’s three members for a six-year term.
The Commission concludes that this limited appointment role does not itself disqualify the judges. It relies on the nature of the suit, the board’s role as only one plaintiff, the fraction of board members appointed, the term length, and the majority vote among judges. Additional facts creating an appearance of impropriety or personal bias could still require recusal. The opinion distinguishes an earlier ruling involving judges on a supervisory committee that appointed a county personnel board.
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: Did participation in the appointment alone require recusal?
A: No. The Commission found any one judge’s involvement too attenuated on the stated facts.
Q: Could other facts change the result?
A: Yes. The opinion identifies additional facts reasonably questioning impartiality or personal bias toward a party as disqualifying.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Canon 3C(l)’s impartiality standard and Canon 3C(l)(a) on personal bias. It distinguishes Advisory Opinion 90-399 concerning a closer supervisory-committee relationship.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(l), Canon 3C(l)(a).
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinion 90-399, personnel-board supervisory committee.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 95-563
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
95-563
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
April 28, 1995
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion. You asked whether the circuit judges of your circuit are disqualified from presiding over an action by the county and the city-county personnel board seeking a declaration whether a recent act requires the county to increase the salaries of certain probation officers when, under a long-standing statute, one of the three members of the city- county personnel board is appointed to a six-year term by a majority vote of the county probate judge and all circuit judges in the circuit. As acknowledged in your request for an opinion, this Commission previously has held that a judge who is a member of a personnel board supervisory committee which is the appointing authority for a county personnel board is disqualified from sitting in any proceeding involving the members of that personnel board in their official capacity. This opinion was based upon the general provision in Canon 3C(l) that a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Advisory Opinion 90-399. However, it is the opinion of this Commission that the circuit judges of your circuit are not disqualified from presiding over the action you describe by their mere position as members of the appointing authority for one of the members of the city-county personnel board. Under the totality of the circumstances you presented (the nature of the suit, that the board is only one of the plaintiffs, that the judges only appoint one of the board’s members, the length of the term of that board member, and that the appointment is made by a majority vote of seven circuit judges and a probate judge), any one judge’s involvement in the appointment of a board member is too attenuated a relationship for the judge’s impartiality to be reasonably questioned. Of course, if any additional facts exist which would create an appearance of impropriety, disqualification would be required under Canon 3C(l), and any personal bias or prejudice concerning a party would require disqualification under Canon 3C(l)(a). The facts you relate distinguish this case from the one addressed in Advisory Opinion 90-399. However, whichever judge is assigned to the case should examine any additional facts of which he or she is aware to assure himself or herself that his or her impartiality may not reasonably be questioned and also that no personal bias or prejudice concerning a party exists.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1995. 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