May an Alabama appellate judge rejoin a case after the firm of the judge’s spouse’s lawyer withdraws?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1997. 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 judge’s wife had retained a lawyer for unrelated merger litigation. The lawyer’s firm had appeared in an appeal before the judge, but the firm later withdrew. The judge had recused when the spouse’s representation began.
The Commission distinguishes an attorney who personally represents the judge’s spouse from other members of that attorney’s firm. It says the attorney’s own appearance would disqualify the judge under Canon 3C while the representation continued, but the disqualification ordinarily does not extend to the attorney’s colleagues. No extraordinary circumstance appeared. The judge’s earlier recusal in this appeal had been unnecessary, and the judge could participate again.
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 earlier recusal prevent the judge from resuming the appeal?
A: No. The Commission says the recusal was unnecessary on these facts and the judge may participate.
Background and rules framework
The Commission applies Canon 3C to the specific request.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C.
Other opinions cited:
- Alabama JIC Opinions 93-494, 92-443, and 88-336, spouse’s lawyer appearing; Opinion 78-53, the lawyer’s partner appearing.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 97-643
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
97-643
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
May 9, 1997
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion as to whether an appellate court judge is disqualified from sitting in a case under the following circumstances: Your wife is a stockholder/director in a closely-held family corporation. Currently, said corporation is involved in merger litigation in which your wife is represented by an attorney. Prior to the time that the attorney represented your wife, you participated in cases in which the attorney or other members of his firm appeared. When the attorney began to represent your wife, you recused yourself from cases involving the attorney or his firm. You participated in reviewing a particular case in which your wife’s attorney’s firm appeared prior to the time the attorney began representing your wife. When the attorney began representing your wife, you recused yourself from further participation in that case. The attorney’s firm has now withdrawn from the pending case. It is the opinion of the Commission that you are not disqualified from participating in the pending case under those circumstances. We note that the Commission has previously held that under provisions of Canon 3C, Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, a judge is disqualified from sitting in a proceeding in which an attorney for one of the parties represents the judge’s spouse in an unrelated matter. See Advisory Opinions 93-494, 92-443, 88-336. Your disqualification would cease when the attorney/client relationship ended. Advisory Opinion 87-313. However, a judge’s disqualification does not ordinarily extend to other members of that same firm. See Advisory Opinions 93-494, 92-443, 88-337. “The mere fact that a judge has retained an attorney’s law partner to represent the judge or a member of the judge’s family in a single case would not disqualify the judge, under Canon 3C, from sitting in a different case where the attorney represents one of the parties.” Advisory Opinion 78-53. There are no extraordinary circumstances apparent in your current situation which place you outside the general rule. Even though you recused yourself from participating in the pending case in which your wife’s attorney’s firm appeared, such recusal was not necessary and you may participate in reviewing the pending case. 97-643 Page 2 This opinion has been considered by the entire Commission and is the opinion of the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Yours very truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1997. 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