May a part-time municipal judge hear a criminal charge against a circuit judge before whom the municipal judge practices law?

Plain-English summary

The part-time municipal judge ordinarily practiced law before a circuit judge in three or four cases a year. That circuit judge was the defendant in a municipal criminal proceeding.

The Commission required recusal under Canon 3C(1). It accepted that the municipal judge reported no actual bias, but concluded that the continuing lawyer-judge relationship would reasonably cause members of the public to question impartiality.

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 municipal judge’s belief in personal impartiality settle the issue?

A: No. The Commission applies the reasonable observer standard and requires recusal despite the absence of asserted actual bias.

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).

Cases:

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

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 22-953: Part-Time Judge Clients

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-614
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

96-614
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
August 9, 1996
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion whether a part-time municipal judge may preside over a criminal proceeding against a circuit judge where the municipal judge ordinarily appears before that circuit judge as an attorney in three or four cases a year. It is the opinion of the Commission that disqualification is required under Canon 3C(l), which provides that a judge should disqualify himself when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The test for disqualification under the general provision in Canon 3C(l) is whether “a person of ordinary prudence in the judge’s position knowing all of the facts known to the judge [would] find that there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality.” In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350, 356 (Ala. 1984). Recusal is required under this provision when facts are shown which make it reasonable for members of the public, a party, or counsel to question the impartiality of the judge. Id., at 355-356. The question is not whether the judge is actually impartial, but whether another person knowing all of the circumstances might reasonably question the judge’s impartiality -- whether there is an appearance of impropriety. Ex parte Duncan, 638 So. 2d 1332, 1334 (Ala. 1994). The Commission does not suggest that there is any actual bias in this case, and it accepts your representation that you do not personally have a problem in hearing the case at issue. However, the Commission believes that it would be reasonable for members of the public to question the impartiality of any judge who is called upon to preside over a criminal charge against another judge when he represents clients as an attorney in cases before the defendant/judge. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION