Does a judge’s former ownership of bank stock require recusal when the bank becomes a party?

Plain-English summary

A bank had been added as a defendant, and the judge previously owned its shares. The Commission concludes that past ownership alone does not require recusal.

It distinguishes current stock ownership in a corporate party, which triggers Canon 3C(1)(c). After that ground ends, continued disqualification requires extraordinary circumstances that would still make a reasonable person question impartiality under Canon 3C(1).

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: Would current stock ownership have a different result?

A: Yes. The Commission says holding stock in a corporate party requires disqualification under Canon 3C(1)(c).

Background and rules framework

The Commission discusses Canon 3C(1), Canon 3C(1)(c) in addressing the particular facts in the request.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1), Canon 3C(1)(c).

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 86-249, current stock ownership; Opinions 92-454 and 94-516, cessation of a disqualification ground.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 25-965: Stock Investments

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-617
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

96-617
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
September 27, 1996
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion as to whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a case in which a bank was recently added as a party defendant on the ground that the judge previously owned stock in the bank. It is the opinion of the Commission that the mere fact that a judge previously owned stock in a corporate party to an action does not disqualify the judge from hearing the action. Current ownership of stock in a corporation which is a party to a suit does cause disqualification under Canon 3C(1)(c). See Advisory Opinion 86-249. However, the Commission has previously recognized that once a ground for disqualification ceases, recusal is not required unless there are extraordinary circumstances present which would cause continued disqualification under the general provision of Canon 3C(1) because a reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality. Advisory Opinions 92-454 and 94-516. Mere prior ownership of stock in a party does not cause disqualification of a judge. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION