Does a judge remain disqualified after the party whose lawyer created the conflict is dismissed from the case?

Plain-English summary

The judge had contributed to unrelated litigation over judicial compensation and belonged to a class represented there by an attorney who also represented a defendant in the case the judge would hear. The judge asked whether disqualification would persist if that defendant was dismissed by agreement.

The Commission said the judge could hear the remaining case after dismissal, absent unusual additional circumstances that still called impartiality into question. It reaffirmed earlier opinions under which recusal generally ends when the circumstance causing it ceases.

The same official PDF contains a separate answer numbered 98-693 permitting a status call to check a reported conflict. This page addresses the dismissal answer numbered 98-692.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 dismissal of the represented defendant end this disqualification?

A: Yes, absent unusual additional circumstances raising a continuing question about impartiality.

Q: Could the judge remain disqualified after dismissal?

A: Yes. The Commission preserved an exception for extraordinary circumstances requiring continued recusal.

Q: Did the request describe such additional circumstances?

A: No. The Commission said none had been related.

Background and rules framework

The answer applies the Commission’s earlier opinions that disqualification generally ends when its cause ceases, unless extraordinary circumstances keep the impartiality concern alive. It names no numbered Canon provision.

Citations and references

Advisory Opinions 92-454, 96-605, 96-606, 96-616, and 96-617.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 98-693: Status Call to Check Conflict

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 96-605: Stock Sale Removes Disqualification

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 92-454: Withdrawal of Spouse’s Counsel

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 98-692

• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH McDONOUGH STREET, SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
TELEPHONE (334) 242-4089 FAX (334) 240-3327

May 15, 1998

The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an 98-692 advisory opinion as to whether a judge is disqualified under the Canons of Judicial Ethics from hearing a certain case. You state that the judge would have been disqualified from hearing the case because a party is represented by an attorney who also represents a class of which the judge is a member in unrelated litigation involving judicial compensation and the judge made a monetary contribution to that litigation, and ask whether the judge would still be disqualified if the defendant who is represented by the attorney in question is dismissed by agreement of the parties.

It is the opinion of the Commission that, absent unusual additional circumstances causing a continued question as to impartiality, a judge is not disqualified to hear an action after dismissal by the parties of the defendant whose representation had caused disqualification of the judge. The Commission has previously held on a number of occasions that, unless there are extraordinary circumstances that would require continued disqualification, a judge is not disqualified to hear an action after a circumstance causing the judge to be disqualified ceases to exist. See Advisory Opinions 92-454, 96-605, 96-606, 96-616, and 96-617. You have not related any extraordinary circumstances that would require the judge’s continued disqualification.

The Commission also has considered your request for an advisory opinion 98-693 as to whether a judge who has been informally apprised of a possible conflict in his hearing a case may set the case for a status call to determine if a conflict actually exists. It is the opinion of the Commission that a judge may, consistently with the Canons of Judicial Ethics, schedule and conduct a status call in a case in order to

98-693
Page 2

determine whether a potential conflict in his hearing the case of which he has been informally advised truly exists.

Yours truly,

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION