May former court employees use a judge’s name to announce private practice, and must the judge recuse when they appear?

Plain-English summary

A judicial assistant and juvenile probation officer were preparing to practice law. The judge asked whether their announcements could refer to the former court association and whether their appearances as counsel would require recusal.

The Commission says staff members’ own advertising lies outside its power to give advisory opinions. It nevertheless concludes that the judge should not give them permission to use the judge’s name or office in an opening announcement, citing Canon 2C. When they later appear as counsel, recusal is not required solely from their former employment. The judge is disqualified if the relationship creates actual bias toward a party or if the former employee participated in the same case or a related controversy while employed by the court.

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 the Commission approve the former employees’ own announcements?

A: No. It said advice about their conduct was outside its authority, and separately said the judge should not permit use of the judge’s name or office.

Q: Does a former assistant’s appearance as counsel automatically require recusal?

A: No. The opinion identifies actual bias or that employee’s prior participation in the case or a related controversy as conditions requiring disqualification.

Background and rules framework

The opinion cites Rule 17 of the Judicial Inquiry Commission Rules on advisory authority, Canon 2C on lending judicial prestige, Canon 3B(2) on staff standards, and Canon 3C(l)(a) on actual bias toward a party.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 2C, Canon 3B(2), Canon 3C(l)(a).

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-590: Former Lawyer
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-588: Spouse’s Adverse Lawyer

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 95-576
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

95-576
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
October 6, 1995
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion with regard to two of your employees (your judicial assistant and one of your juvenile probation officers) who took the state bar exam this summer and hope to enter the private practice of law. You asked whether these employees could list their former association with either yourself or the court in their public announcements of the opening of their offices, and whether your recusal would be required in cases in which they are attorney of record. The Judicial Inquiry Commission may only provide advisory opinions as to whether certain action proposed to be taken by a judge may constitute a violation of the canons of judicial ethics. Rule 17, Judicial Inquiry Commission Rules. Your first question concerns possible actions by former employees, not by a judge. As such, it is beyond the scope of inquiry which this Commission may address. However, it is the opinion of the Commission that a judge should not give permission to an employee or former employee to use his name or office in a public announcement of the opening of a private practice of law. Canon 2C of the canons of judicial ethics states that a judge “should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey that they are in a special position to influence him.” In addition, Canon 3B(2) provides that a judge “should require his staff and court officials subject to his direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to him.” Under Canon 3C(l)(a), a judge is disqualified if he actually has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, for any reason. If a judge’s relationship with a former employee causes him to have a bias or prejudice toward a party, disqualification is required by Canon 3C(l)(a). Other than such a situation, it is the opinion of the Commission that a judge is not disqualified from presiding over a case in which his former judicial assistant or juvenile probation officer represents a party unless the former employee participated in the case or a related controversy while in the employment of the court.