Does a county-paid salary supplement disqualify a judge from a case involving the county commission?
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
A judge asked whether a county commission’s payment of a salary supplement barred the judge from hearing a case involving that commission.
The Commission repeats its earlier conclusion that mere receipt of a county salary supplement does not disqualify a judge when the county is a party. It says additional facts may require disqualification, including when the supplement is directly related to the dispute or could be substantially affected by its outcome. The opinion leaves other fact patterns under Canons 3C(l) and 3C(l)(c) for case-specific review.
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: Is the supplement itself enough for recusal?
A: No. The Commission says mere receipt is insufficient.
Q: When might the supplement matter to recusal?
A: The opinion identifies a direct link to the litigation or a substantial effect of the outcome on the supplement as possible disqualifying circumstances.
Background and rules framework
The opinion discusses Canons 3C(l) and 3C(l)(c) in light of earlier opinions on county salary supplements.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(l), Canon 3C(l)(c).
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 91-416 and 80-97, county salary supplements.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 95-569
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
95-569
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 11, 1995
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge is disqualified under the Canons of Judicial Ethics from presiding over a trial in which the county commission in his circuit is a party where the county commission pays the judge a salary supplement. The Commission has previously decided that the mere fact that a local salary supplement to the judge has been granted by a county commission does not cause a judge’s disqualification in proceedings in which the county commission is a party, but that additional circumstances could arise which would cause disqualification to occur. Advisory Opinion 91-416. In Advisory Opinion 80-97, the Commission similarly decided that the mere receipt of a salary supplement from a county does not disqualify a judge from sitting in cases in which the county is a party. However, disqualification could occur in instances in which the salary supplement is directly related to the matter in litigation or could be substantially affected by the outcome of the litigation. In addition, there are undoubtedly many fact situations which could arise under the applicable Canons 3C(l) and 3C(l)(c) which the Commission would have to consider on a case by case basis.
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