Do old social connections and modest campaign contributions disqualify a judge from a divorce case?

Plain-English summary

The plaintiff and judge had attended the Air Force Academy at different times. The plaintiff’s parents once lived next door to the judge and gave a $30 campaign contribution in 1988; the defendant’s lawyers had contributed $200 that year.

Applying Canon 3C(1)’s reasonable question about impartiality, the Commission found no close personal relationship requiring disqualification. It also relied on earlier opinions saying the mere receipt of a campaign contribution from a party or counsel does not itself require recusal.

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: Did the old campaign contributions require recusal?

A: No. The Commission says the contributions alone, including the modest one from the plaintiff’s father, did not do so.

Background and rules framework

The Commission applies Canon 3C(1) to the specific conduct in the request.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1).

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinions 84-213 and 96-607, campaign contributions; Opinion 95-541, ordinary social contact.

Cases:

• In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala. 1984), ordinary-prudence impartiality test.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 97-645: Campaign Contribution

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-613
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

96-613
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 as to whether a judge is disqualified to sit in a case under the following circumstances: The plaintiff/husband in this domestic relations case attended the Air Force Academy in about the late 1970's and the judge attended the Air Force Academy from 1961 to 1963. The plaintiff/ husband’s parents lived next door to the judge for some period of time that the judge cannot recall after the plaintiff graduated from high school and went away to the academy. The plaintiff/husband’s parents gave the judge a $30 campaign contribution in 1988. The defendant/wife’s attorneys gave the judge $200 in campaign contributions in 1988. Under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, disqualification is required when the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Canon 3C(1). The test to determine whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is “would a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position knowing all of the facts known to the judge find that there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality?” In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350, 356 (Ala. 1984). In Advisory Opinion 95-541, the Commission held that the mere fact that a judge and a party attended the same Sunday school class does not present a situation in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned and, thus, did not require disqualification. The Commission likewise finds no basis for reasonably questioning a judge’s impartiality in the fact that the judge and a party both attended the Air Force Academy at some point in time. “Whether or not disqualification is required when a friend appears as a party to a suit before a judge depends on how personal the relationship is between the judge and the party.” J. Shaman, S. Lubet, J. Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics Section 4.15 at 124 (1995). “The fact that one of the parties before the court is known to and thought well of by the judge is not sufficient to show bias. Duncan v. Sherrill, 341 So. 2d 946 (Ala. 1977).” Murphy v. State, 455 So. 2d 924, 929 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984). “[I]t is an inescapable fact of life that judges serving throughout the State will necessarily have had associations and friendships with parties coming before their courts. A judge should not be subject to disqualification for such ordinary relations with his fellow citizens.” Ex parte Hill, 508 So. 2d 269, 272 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). See also, Clemmons v. State, 469 So. 2d 1324 96-613 Page 2 (Ala. Cr. App. 1985). The type of close personal friendship with a party that would require disqualification under Canon 3C(1) is not present in this case. Compare, Bryars v. Bryars, 485 So. 2d 1187 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986). Finally, this Commission has held that the mere receipt of a campaign contribution from a party or counsel does not require a judge’s disqualification. Advisory Opinions 84-213 and 96-607. It is the opinion of this Commission that the modest contribution by the plaintiff’s father in this case is not a ground for disqualification. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION