Does a judge’s father and brother belonging to a hospital corporation disqualify the judge from hospital litigation?

Plain-English summary

The judge’s father and brother were members of a 44-member nonprofit corporation that owned and operated a hospital and elected its trustees. Members could vote on major corporate matters but could not receive earnings or compensation from the corporation’s assets. The trustees managed the hospital’s operations.

After receiving those additional facts following Opinion 96-621, the Commission concluded that the judge was not disqualified from hospital litigation solely because of family membership. It identified circumstances that would change the result: a relative named as a party, a known substantially affected interest, likely material-witness status, or personal involvement in the matter.

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 membership alone disqualify the judge?

A: No. The Commission lists separate conditions involving party status, interests, testimony, or personal involvement that could require disqualification.

Background and rules framework

The Commission applies Canon 3C(1), Canon 3C(1)(d) to the stated facts.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1), Canon 3C(1)(d).

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 96-621, the earlier inquiry reconsidered with additional hospital corporation facts.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 97-647: Family Association

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-627
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

96-627
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 13, 1996
The Commission has considered your request to further consider the inquiry presented in Advisory Opinion 96-621 with respect to whether a judge is disqualified in a proceeding involving a hospital where the judge’s father and brother are members of a 44-member non-profit corporation that elects the board of trustees for the hospital. The additional materials submitted reveal that the corporation owns and operates the non- profit hospital for the benefit of the general public. In addition to election of the members of the board of trustees, the members of the corporation also have the exclusive right to vote on 1) the liquidation, dissolution, or reorganization of the corporation; 2) the sale, exchange, or disposition of all or substantially all the properties of the corporation (but not the power to mortgage or convey such property solely to secure an indebtedness or other obligations of the corporation); 3) to approve the amendment of the corporation’s articles of incorporation; and 4) to approve the admission of any person as an active or associate member of the corporation. Members must have made a contribution to the corporation’s endowment, but members have no right to any pecuniary reward or compensation or otherwise to participate in the earnings of the corporation or its assets, either during the existence of the corporation or upon its dissolution. The Board of Trustees is charged with the management and control over the hospital and business operations of the corporation, including having the exclusive authority to elect officers, to hire, fire and establish compensation for employees, and to consider and approve contracts of the corporation. Based upon the facts presented, it is the opinion of the Commission that the judge is not disqualified in litigation involving the hospital unless his father or brother is named a party to the proceeding, is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, is likely to be a material witness in the proceedings, or has been personally involved in the matter in controversy. Canon 3C(l) and Canon 3C(l)(d). Yours very truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION