Must an Alabama judge remain recused after a first cousin withdraws as counsel?

Plain-English summary

A judge’s first cousin appeared for a party and then withdrew before significant proceedings. The cousin’s law firm remained in the case. The Commission says Canon 3C(1)(d) disqualified the judge while the cousin was an attorney in the proceeding.

Once the cousin withdrew, the ground for disqualification ended. The firm’s continued representation alone did not keep the judge disqualified. The Commission cautions that extraordinary circumstances could still create a reasonable question about impartiality; the request disclosed none.

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: Does the cousin’s firm remaining in the case keep the judge disqualified?

A: No, not solely for that reason after the cousin’s withdrawal.

Q: Could recusal still be required after the cousin withdraws?

A: Yes, if extraordinary circumstances create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality.

Background and rules framework

The Commission applies Canon 3C(1)(d) to the stated family connection and counsel’s participation. It cites earlier Commission opinions for the rule that recusal ends when its ground ceases, absent extraordinary circumstances.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1)(d).

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinions 96-617, 94-516, and 92-454, disqualification ending when its ground ceases.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 97-652: Cousin’s Husband at Counsel’s Firm
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 97-653: Sister-in-Law at Counsel’s Firm

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 97-654
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

97-654
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
June 27, 1997
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion concerning a judge’s obligation to recuse himself from hearing a case in which his first cousin entered an appearance for one of a number of parties and then withdrew as counsel, his law firm remaining in the case, apparently before significant proceedings in the case had occurred. It is the opinion of the Commission that, under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, the judge need not recuse where the relative-attorney has withdrawn from the case. A judge is disqualified under Canon 3 C(l)(d) in any proceeding in which an attorney is related to the judge within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity. The judge’s disqualification is not, however, required merely because a party is represented by a member of a law firm in which a relative within the prohibited degree is also a member. Shaman, Lubet, Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics, 2d ed. § 5.12. Moreover, the Commission has previously recognized that, once a ground for disqualification ceases, recusal is no longer required provided no extraordinary circumstances giving rise to reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality exist. See Advisory Opinions 96- 617, 94-516, and 92-454. The request gives no indication that any such extraordinary circumstances exist, but the judge should consider whether there are any in ruling on the motion. Thus, in this case, the judge’s recusal was required only until the judge’s relative withdrew as counsel for a party. Once that withdrawal was complete, recusal was no longer required. Yours very truly,