Do a judge’s adverse rulings and a litigant’s accusations require recusal or a response?

Plain-English summary

After a partial reversal and remand, a plaintiff filed a letter in open court accusing the trial judge of misconduct in the case and apparently sent copies to officials. The judge asked about recusal and responding to the letter.

The Commission says earlier rulings against the plaintiff do not, by themselves, establish bias or require disqualification under Canon 3 (C). On the second question, it recommends no response to the allegations, citing Canon 2(B)’s requirement of judicial decorum and avoidance of conduct bringing the office into disrepute.

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: Do earlier adverse rulings alone require recusal?

A: No. The Commission says they are not by themselves sufficient to show bias or prejudice.

Q: What did the Commission say about answering the accusation letter?

A: It recommended that the judge not respond, citing Canon 2(B).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 3 (C) to disqualification and cites Hartman v. Board of Trustees on adverse rulings. It invokes Canon 2(B) for the proposed response to the plaintiff’s letter.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3 (C), Canon 2(B).

Cases:

• Hartman v. Board of Trustees, 436 So.2d 837 (Ala. 1983), adverse rulings alone and bias.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-580: Parallel Fraud Suit
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-578: Election Contest

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 95-574
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

95-574
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 11, 1995
This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion from the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Your first question is whether you should disqualify yourself under the following facts: You entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, United Airlines, on all grounds in the case of Iyegha v. United Airlines, Inc., CV-92-1402. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed part of the summary judgment and remanded the case to your court. The plaintiff, David A. Iyegha, then filed a letter in open court asserting various allegations against you based on your actions in this case. We note that the plaintiff apparently has sent copies of this letter to various national and state officials. Your question is governed by Canon 3 (C) , Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, which states that a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding where his “impartiality might reasonably by questioned.” It is the opinion of this Commission that you are not disqualified simply because you made rulings adverse to the plaintiff during the course of these proceedings. Adverse rulings alone are not by themselves sufficient to establish bias and prejudice. Hartman v.Board of Trustees, 436 So.2d 837 (Ala. 1983). Your second question is whether it is appropriate for you to respond to the allegations made in this letter. We recommend that you not respond to the allegations as “a judge should at all times maintain the decorum and temperance befitting his office and should avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.” Canon 2(B).