May a judge hear a forgery case when a closely held corporation in which the judge owns stock is an alleged victim?

Plain-English summary

A closely held corporation was an alleged victim in a felony check-forgery case. The judge was a minority shareholder in that corporation, although the corporation was not a party to the prosecution.

The Commission quotes Canon 3C's financial-interest disqualification and Canon 3C(3)(c)'s definition of financial interest as ownership, however small. It concludes that the judge is disqualified from the criminal trial despite the victim corporation's nonparty status. The Commission says the disqualification is subject to remittal under Canon 3D.

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 corporation have to be a party for this disqualification?

A: No. The Commission disqualifies the judge where a closely held corporation in which the judge owns shares is an alleged victim rather than a party to the criminal case.

Q: Does a minority stockholding count?

A: Yes. The opinion quotes the Canon's definition of financial interest as ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small.

Q: Can the disqualification be remitted?

A: The Commission says it is subject to remittal under Canon 3D.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the financial-interest language of Canons 3C(l) and 3C(3)(c), and Canon 3D on remittal.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(l); Canon 3C(3)(c); Canon 3D.

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinions 76-3, 86-249, and 88-340, stock ownership and victim interests.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-605: Stock Sale

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-595
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

96-595
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
February 23, 1996
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion concerning whether a judge is disqualified to sit in a felony case in which one of the victims of the check forgeries alleged is a closely held corporation of which the judge is a minority shareholder. Canon 3C(l) provides that a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including where he “knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, ... has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.” Under Canon 3C(3)(c), “‘financial interest’ means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small.” The Commission has previously held that a judge is disqualified to sit in a case where the judge owns stock in a corporation that is a party to the suit, but that such disqualification is subject to remittal under Canon 3D. Advisory Opinions 76-3 and 86- 249. Although the corporation at issue in this case is not a party to the criminal proceeding, it is the opinion of the Commission that a judge is disqualified from sitting in a criminal trial where a closely held corporation of which he is a shareholder is one of the alleged victims. See Advisory Opinion 88-340. This disqualification is, however, subject to remittal under Canon 3D. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION