Does a divorce litigant's former partnership with the lawyer representing the judge's brother-in-law disqualify the judge?

Plain-English summary

The husband in a divorce case had recently left a law partnership. His former partner represented the judge's brother-in-law in an unrelated car accident case. The request did not establish whether the husband retained a financial interest in that case under the partnership dissolution.

The Commission concludes that the past partnership, by itself, does not disqualify the judge. Even if the husband retains a financial interest in the brother-in-law's case, the Commission reaches the same result provided the husband himself performed no substantial legal services in that case. It cites earlier opinions involving a party's connection to a lawyer representing a judge or judicial relative.

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 former partnership alone require the judge to step aside?

A: No. The Commission says a party's former partnership with a lawyer representing the judge's brother-in-law in an unrelated matter does not by itself disqualify the judge.

Q: What if the party still has a financial interest in the brother-in-law's case?

A: The Commission says that interest does not change the result, provided the party himself performed no substantial legal services in the brother-in-law's case.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the Commission's earlier disqualification analyses to the stated family and former-partnership relationships. It does not cite a specific Canon provision.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinions 93-501, 78-53, 88-337, and 93-494, relationships involving parties or lawyers representing a judge or the judge's family.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-620: Former Partners’ Trust Advice

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-611
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

96-611
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 9, 1996
The Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion whether a judge is disqualified under the following circumstances: The husband in a divorce proceeding was until recently a law partner of an attorney who is representing the judge’s brother- in-law in a car accident case. It is not known whether the husband/plaintiff still has any financial interest in the judge’s brother-in-law’s case under the terms of the partnership dissolution. In Advisory Opinion 93-501, this Commission held that a judge was not disqualified from presiding over a case merely because the defendant was a paralegal in a law firm that represented the judge’s family partnership. In another related matter, this Commission has previously held that a judge is not disqualified merely because a party is represented by a law partner of an attorney who represents the judge or the judge’s spouse. Advisory Opinions 78-53, 88-337, and 93-494. It is the opinion of this Commission that a judge is not disqualified from presiding over a civil case merely because a party was previously a law partner of an attorney who represents the judge’s brother-in-law in an unrelated matter. It is also the opinion of the Commission that the judge would not be disqualified even if the husband/plaintiff retains a financial interest in the brother-in-law’s case under the terms of the partnership dissolution, provided that he himself provided no substantial legal services in connection with the judge’s brother-in-law’s case. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION