May an Alabama judge chair the IMPACT program board under the limited role described in Opinion 96-630?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Commission reconsidered earlier Opinion 96-624 after receiving more details about the IMPACT program. The program had county and city contributions, a single employee plus volunteers, and a participant materials charge of about $30.
The judge would preside at meetings and take part in broad planning and direction, but not fundraising, daily operations, or staff supervision. The Commission permitted board chair service under all of those particular facts. The short letter cites no numbered Canon and does not restate the earlier opinion’s analysis.
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 Commission approve fundraising or daily program management by the judge?
A: No. The revised facts expressly exclude those functions from the role it approved.
Background and rules framework
The letter cites no numbered Canon. It revisits Opinion 96-624 only on the newly submitted IMPACT program facts.
Citations and references
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinion 96-624, reconsidered after additional facts about the IMPACT program.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 96-630
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
96-630
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 13, 1996
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request to reconsider Advisory Opinion 96-624 in light of additional facts concerning the operation of the IMPACT program. You have indicated that funding for the program includes contributions by the County Commission and three cities; that the judge would neither be involved in fund- raising nor in oversight of the day-to-day operation of the program; that the program will have only one employee and that the rest of the staff will be volunteers; that the only charge to the participants will be approximately $30.00, which covers the cost of materials only; that the judge will not have supervisory authority over the staff providing the counseling; that the judge would only be involved in presiding over meetings and in broad areas such as planning for needs and general program direction; and that there is no competing facility from which such services are available. It is the opinion of the Commission that, under all of the facts in this particular case, the judge may serve as chairman of the board of the IMPACT program. Yours very truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1996. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace