Should Court of Civil Appeals judges recuse from a contract case against the state chief justice?
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
Judges of the Court of Civil Appeals asked whether they should participate in a breach-of-contract suit against the Alabama chief justice
The Commission applies Canon 3C(l) and concludes that the judges should recuse under all the circumstances of this particular case to avoid an appearance of impropriety. It expressly says it does not suggest actual bias and does not require recusal in every case involving the chief justice.
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 find the appellate judges actually biased?
A: No. The opinion expressly disclaims any suggestion of actual bias.
Q: Does this ruling cover every case involving the chief justice?
A: No. The Commission limits its conclusion to the totality of circumstances in this case.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes Canon 3C(l)’s disqualification standard, including when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and cites Advisory Opinion 92-442 for the limits of its conclusion.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(l).
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinion 92-442, cited in limiting this opinion’s conclusion.
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-592: Custody Petition
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-607: Campaign Contributions
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 95-587
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
95-587
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 8, 1995
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered the request from the judges of the Court of Civil Appeals as to whether they are disqualified or should recuse themselves from participating in the case of Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Company's suit against Chief Justice Perry 0. Hooper, Sr., for breach of contract. Canon 3C(l) provides that “[a] judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” It is the opinion of the Commission that judges of the Court of Civil Appeals should recuse themselves under the totality of the circumstances relating to the above-referenced case so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The Commission does not suggest that any judge of the Court of Civil Appeals is actually biased, nor should this opinion be construed to require recusal in every case in which the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court may be somehow involved. See Advisory Opinion 92-442. However, it is the opinion of the Commission that recusal is appropriate under all of the circumstances relating to this particular case under the reasonable person/appearance of impropriety standard in Canon 3C(l). Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
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