Must a judge recuse when a party is represented by a lawyer who rents office space from the judge?

Plain-English summary

A judge received rent from an attorney who represented parties in cases before the judge. The question was whether that landlord-tenant relationship required recusal.

The Commission held that the judge was disqualified from those cases. It linked Canon 5C(l)'s concern about financial dealings affecting impartiality with Canon 3C(l)'s reasonable-question standard.

The opinion relied on earlier rulings that the judge's income from a lawyer-tenant could depend on that lawyer's financial success, giving a reasonable observer a basis to question impartiality.

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 rent from the appearing lawyer require recusal?

A: Yes. The Commission treated the financial relationship as a disqualifying reason to question impartiality.

Q: Did the lawyer have to represent the judge personally?

A: No. The opinion concerned rental income from the lawyer’s office space.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Alabama Canon 5C(l) on financial dealings and Canon 3C(l) on objectively questionable impartiality. Its PDF prints the parenthesized character as a lowercase letter.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons 5C(l) and 3C(l), as printed; Advisory Opinions 81-115 and 82-164.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 81-115: Rent from Former Partners

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 82-164: Former Partner Leaves Building

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 97-660

• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

97-660
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 whether a judge should hear cases in which a party is represented by an attorney who rents his law office from the judge. It is the opinion of the Commission that, under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, a judge is disqualified from hearing cases in which a party is represented by an attorney who rents law office space from the judge. Canon 5C(l) provides, “A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, or exploit his judicial position.” In Advisory Opinion 81-115, the Commission concluded that a newly-appointed circuit judge was disqualified from hearing cases in which a party was represented by a law firm that rented office space from the judge. The Commission noted that the business relationship might cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality under Canon 3 C(l), and that such questions would tend to interfere with the judge’s performance of his or her judicial duties, thereby linking Canon 3C(l) to Canon 5C(l) in this context. In Advisory Opinion 82-164, the Commission reaffirmed its opinion in 81-115 explaining that its holding “is based upon the fact that the judge receives income as a financial benefit from [the] attorney ..., and that the financial benefit or income may depend on the financial success of the attorney ...” Accordingly, the rental relationship you describe is a basis for disqualification or recusal.