Does an attorney’s escrow of money owed to the judge disqualify the judge from a case involving that attorney?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
An attorney appearing before the judge held about $9,000 in escrow due to be paid to the judge at an appointed time. The escrow arose from a partnership-business sale and covered outstanding taxes and possible claims. Neither the attorney nor anyone in the firm then represented the judge.
On those stated facts, the Commission concludes that the Canons do not disqualify the judge from participating in the case. The letter does not cite a particular Canon provision or expand its reasoning beyond the described circumstances.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996, 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 the escrow arrangement alone disqualify the judge?
A: No. The Commission finds no disqualification on the facts given, including the escrow's purpose and the absence of a current attorney-client relationship.
Q: Does the opinion address a lawyer who currently represents the judge?
A: No. The request expressly says neither the attorney nor a firm member currently represents the judge.
Background and rules framework
The Commission applies the Canons to the described escrow relationship without citing a particular provision.
Citations and references
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-594
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
96-594
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
January 31, 1996
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion as to whether you are disqualified from presiding in a case in which one of the attorneys holds in his escrow account approximately $9,000 due to be paid to you at an appointed time. You state that the escrow results from the sale of a partnership business and that the escrow was established to pay outstanding taxes and for possible claims. You further state that neither the attorney nor any member of his firm presently represents you in any legal matter. It is the opinion of the Commission that based upon the facts recited, you are not disqualified by the Canons from participation in the case. Very truly yours, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1996. 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