May a judge sit on a nonprofit youth facility board while referring juveniles to that facility?

Plain-English summary

The Commission reconsidered a judge's board role at a nonprofit youth facility to which the judge referred juveniles. Additional facts included unpaid service, limited court-allotted beds, no per-referral funding, licensing, and rehabilitative services supplementing the state program.

On those facts, the Commission permitted the board service. It reasoned that the facility filled an unmet service need and that referrals to it did not impugn the judge's impartiality.

The opinion expressly overruled Opinions 96-624, 93-507, and 93-468, and withdrew Opinion 96-625 in favor of this substituted answer. Its reasoning cites Canon 5G.

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 allow this board service?

A: Yes, based on the nonprofit facility and other specific facts supplied.

Q: Did per-referral funding drive the analysis?

A: The opinion identified the absence of funding based on the number of the judge’s referrals as one of the additional facts.

Q: What happened to the earlier contrary opinions?

A: It overruled 96-624, 93-507, and 93-468, and withdrew and replaced 96-625.

Background and rules framework

The opinion invokes Alabama Canon 5G in its discussion of judicial activities to improve the administration of justice.

Citations and references

Alabama Canon 5G, as printed; Advisory Opinions 93-468, 93-507, 96-624, and 96-625.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-625: Withdrawn Youth Facility Board Opinion

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-624: Overruled Youth Counseling Board Opinion

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 93-507: Overruled Treatment Center Board Opinion

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 97-678

• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

97-678
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
October 3, 1997
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request that we reconsider our opinion 96-625 concerning whether, under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, a judge may sit on the board of directors of a youth facility to which the judge refers juveniles who come before the court over which the judge presides. Along with your request the Commission has received facts including and supplemental to those previously considered. The facts include the following: the facility is a non-profit organization, the judge serves without remuneration, the court is allotted a limited number of beds at the facility, the facility’s funding is not based on the number of clients referred by the judge, the facility provides rehabilitation opportunities which supplement and complement those provided by the Department of Youth Services, the facility is licensed by the Department of Youth Services, the facility was created to fill a void in services which were not otherwise available in the service area, and many judges presently serve on the boards of similar facilities as well as on local DYS boards. Based on the specific facts presented, it is the opinion of the Commission that the canons of judicial ethics do not prohibit service on the boards described. Under Canon 5G, judges are permitted to engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. The creation of the facilities in question improve the administration of justice by providing heretofore unprovided opportunities, in line with those provided by the Department of Youth Services, for rehabilitation of juvenile offenders over whom our courts exercise more extensive supervisory authority than other litigants. The facilities provide for a service demand that was not previously being met. Thus, referrals to these facilities cannot be said to impune a judge’s impartiality. We therefore conclude that service on boards of non-profit organizations providing rehabilitative services supplemental to those provided the Department of Youth Services is not prohibited by the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Opinions holding to the contrary, including Advisory Opinions 96-624, 93-507, and 93- 468 are hereby overruled and Advisory Opinion 96-625 is hereby withdrawn and this opinion substituted. Yours very truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION