Does a judge’s father and brother working at a hospital disqualify the judge from hospital cases?

Plain-English summary

The judge’s father and brother practiced medicine with staff privileges at a hospital and belonged to a nonprofit corporation that elected its trustees. The inquiry said they received no compensation and had no financial stake in hospital litigation.

The Commission concluded that staff privileges alone did not disqualify the judge. It reached the same result for corporation membership so long as the relatives’ only fiduciary role was voting for trustees. It identified disqualifying circumstances involving bias or disputed-fact knowledge, an affected interest, likely material-witness status, or a covered relative’s officer, director, or trustee role. Later Opinion 96-627 considered additional corporation facts.

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: Do staff privileges by themselves require recusal?

A: No. The Commission says they do not under the stated facts.

Background and rules framework

The Commission applies Canon 3C(1)(a), Canon 3C(1)(d)(i), Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii), Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), Canon 3D to the particular conduct and relationships described.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1)(a), Canon 3C(1)(d)(i), Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii), Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), Canon 3D.

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 93-504, nonprofit hospital membership.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-627: Hospital Corporation

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-621
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

96-621
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
September 27, 1996
The Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion as to whether a judge is disqualified from hearing cases in which a certain hospital is a party because the judge’s father and brother are doctors who have active staff privileges at the hospital and also are members of a 44-member non-profit corporation that elects the board of trustees for the hospital. The judge’s relatives receive no compensation for their membership in the foregoing non-profit corporation and have no financial interest at risk in litigation involving the hospital. It is the opinion of this Commission that a judge is not disqualified from hearing cases in which a certain hospital is a party merely because his father and brother are doctors who have staff privileges at the hospital. See Advisory Opinions 80-73, 82-l33, 88-322. 88-345, and 92-462. It is also the opinion of this Commission that the fact that the judge’s relatives are members of a non-profit corporation that elects the board of trustees of the hospital does not cause disqualification of the judge so long as the relatives’ only fiduciary responsibility with respect to the hospital as members of the corporation is to vote in the election of members of the hospital’s board. See Advisory Opinion 93-504. Canon 3C(l)(d)(i) requires disqualification where a relative within the fourth degree of relationship to a judge is an officer, director or trustee of a party. Of course, if the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the hospital, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding, the judge would be disqualified under Canon 3C(l)(a). The judge also would be disqualified under Canons 3C(l)(d)(ii) and 3C(l)(d)(iii) in any case in which his father or brother was known to the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding or in which the judge knows that his father or brother is likely to be a material witness. See Advisory Opinions 80-73, 81-103, 82-l33, 88-322, 88-345, 89- 366, 92-462, and 95-564. Any disqualification under Canon 3C(l)(d) is subject to remittal under Canon 3D. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION