Does a judge’s membership in a salary class action disqualify the judge from cases involving class counsel’s firm?
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 about unrelated cases involving a law firm whose member represented a judicial-salary class that included the judge. The request also asked about realignment of the judge as a defendant in that class suit.
The Commission finds that an unnamed class member is not disqualified from unrelated cases involving the class lawyer or another lawyer in that firm. It reaches the opposite conclusion for a judge who is a named party, intervenes, or contributes money to the class litigation. The Commission says other personal involvement could also cause disqualification and offers to consider specific facts on 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 mere membership in the salary class disqualify the judge?
A: No. The Commission says an absent class member may hear an unrelated case involving class counsel or that lawyer’s firm.
Q: Which forms of involvement change the result?
A: Being a named party, intervening, or funding the class litigation requires disqualification from cases involving the class lawyer or firm under the opinion.
Background and rules framework
The Commission applies Canon 3C and its prior opinions on an attorney or firm representing the judge in unrelated litigation. It distinguishes absent class membership from named or financially involved participation.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C.
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 78-53, 88-337, 93-484, 84-226, 95-381, and 93-581, earlier class-member and law-firm disqualification rulings.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 95-582
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
95-582
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
November 13, 1995
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a case in which a party is represented by a member of a law firm when another member of that firm represents a plaintiff class of which the judge is a member in an unrelated action. You also requested an opinion as to whether a judge would be disqualified from hearing a case in which a member of the same firm represented a party if the judge is realigned to be a defendant in the unrelated class action. Two Alabama judges, as named class representatives, brought the class action lawsuit against the State Comptroller seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to the state statutes which provide that counties may supplement state expenditures for salaries of judges within their county. The suit alleges on behalf of the class that said statutes and local enactments are unconstitutional and are in violation of the Alabama and Federal Constitutions. It is the opinion of the Commission that disqualification is not required under the first circumstance set out above but is required under the second. The Commission has previously decided that the mere fact that a judge is represented by a member of a particular law firm does not disqualify the judge under Canon 3C from sitting in a different case in which a party is represented by another member of the firm. Advisory Opinions 78-53, 88-337 and 93-484. The Commission likewise has held that the mere fact that a member of a law firm represents a party opponent to a judge in unrelated litigation does not cause the judge’s disqualification in other cases where a different member of the firm represents a party. Advisory opinions 88-337 and 84-226. In addition, we note that in advisory opinion 95-381, the Commission has also held that a judge who is a member of a class in litigation is not disqualified from sitting in an unrelated matter in which a party is represented by the lawyer representing the class. However, if the judge is a named class representative or named party, advisory opinion 93-581 further provides, disqualification is required. With regard to this particular litigation, it is the opinion of the Commission that a judge who is merely an absent class member is not disqualified under the Canons of Judicial Ethics from hearing cases in which a party is represented by either the lawyer representing the plaintiffs or a member of that lawyer’s firm. However, a judge who is a named party to the class action, or who intervened in the suit, or who has contributed funds to the expense of litigation would be disqualified from hearing cases in which a party is represented by the attorney for the plaintiffs or a member of that attorney’s firm. Other personal involvement in the class action might also cause disqualification in the unrelated suits. The Commission will consider other specific factual circumstances upon request from the affected judge. Very truly yours,
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