May a part-time retired judge hear a case involving a title insurer for which the judge has worked?

Plain-English summary

A retired circuit judge was appointed to a special Alabama Supreme Court for a title-insurance dispute. The judge practiced of counsel at a firm whose partner acted as an agent for the plaintiff insurer. The judge had performed a title search for a policy commitment and was authorized to sign binders, policies, and endorsements for the insurer.

Under Compliance § D(2), the part-time active retired judge remained subject to Canon 3. The Commission concluded that other litigants and the public could reasonably question impartiality when the judge would hear a claim against an agent of a company for which the judge performed similar work. It did not decide whether other financial-interest grounds also required disqualification.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 decide whether a financial-interest Canon independently required recusal?

A: No. Its Canon 3C(1) conclusion made that additional question unnecessary.

Background and rules framework

The Commission applies Canon 3C(1), Compliance § D(2) to the stated relationships.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1), Compliance § D(2).

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinions 81-123, 83-199, and 88-343, judges’ financial or work relationships with parties.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 97-658: Former Client

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 97-631
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

97-631
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
January 24, 1997
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion whether a retired circuit judge who has been appointed to serve as an associate justice of a special Supreme Court of the State of Alabama to hear a certain case is disqualified to sit in the matter under the following circumstances. The plaintiff title insurance company claims that the defendant improperly failed to correctly certify title to certain property; one of the partners in the law firm where the retired judge practices ‘of counsel’ is an agent of the plaintiff for the issuance of policies of title insurance; the retired judge himself has personally performed a title search for a commitment issued by the referred partner of the law firm as agent for the plaintiff; and it appears that the retired judge himself has been authorized to sign binders, policies, and any needed endorsements on behalf of the plaintiff company for the last six months. It is the opinion of the Commission that the retired circuit judge is disqualified to serve on the special supreme court hearing this case. A retired judge who is serving as a judge part time in an active duty status is required to comply with Canon 3. Compliance with the Canons of Judicial Ethics, §D(2). Canon 3C(1) provides that a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In this instance, the Commission finds that the other litigants as well as the general public might reasonably question a judge’s impartiality in a proceeding by a company alleging malfeasance by an agent where the judge himself has performed and is authorized to perform similar work for that company. See Advisory Opinions 81-123 (judge employed part-time by a party); 83- 199 (judge rents office space in a building owned by the judge to a party); and 88-343 (judge has beneficial financial relationship with organization of which defendant is a member). Because the Commission finds that disqualification is required under the general Canon 3C(1) standard requiring recusal when there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality, it does not address whether disqualification also might be required under Canon 3C(1)(c) and the broad definition of “financial interest” in a party contained in Canon 3C(3)(c). Yours very truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION