Do a litigant’s reported threats against a judge require recusal in that litigant’s later case?

Plain-English summary

After an earlier domestic-relations hearing, the judge learned that the defendant reportedly made threats against the judge and others. The defendant's lawyer later said the comments had been misperceived and made in anger. The question concerned a later petition to modify the case.

The Commission held that the judge was not disqualified unless the incident actually produced personal bias or prejudice against the defendant. It said a litigant's actions or statements during a proceeding do not by themselves require disqualification.

The opinion reasoned that a contrary rule would let dissatisfied litigants control proceedings through their conduct. It concluded that if the judge did not feel affected, recusal was unnecessary.

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 the reported threats alone disqualify the judge?

A: No. The Commission required actual personal bias or prejudice resulting from the incident.

Q: What if the judge was unaffected by the statements?

A: The opinion said the judge was not disqualified if the judge did not feel affected.

Q: Why did the Commission reject automatic recusal?

A: It said automatic recusal for a litigant’s conduct could let dissatisfied litigants control judicial proceedings.

Background and rules framework

The Commission applied its earlier opinions on recusal after a litigant’s actions or statements during judicial proceedings. The body cites Advisory Opinions 89-391, 97-636, 98-686, and 98-695; it names no specific Canon provision.

Citations and references

Advisory Opinions 89-391, 97-636, 98-686, and 98-695.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 97-636: Allegations Against a Judge and Recusal

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 90-391: Litigant Threatens Commission Complaint

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 98-703

• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

98-703
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
June 26, 1998
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion whether a judge is disqualified to hear a petition to modify in a certain domestic relations case when the judge had been informed following a hearing in the case the previous year that the defendant had voiced threats against the judge and others to his attorney following the hearing. It has been alleged that the sheriff’s office provided security for the judge at his chambers after the judge was advised of the threats, but the judge has no recollection concerning this point. The judge states that threats unfortunately are not uncommon in domestic relations cases. Counsel for the defendant now states that his perception of the defendant’s comments was erroneous, and that the defendant made statements while angered that he did not mean. It is the opinion of the Commission that the judge is not disqualified under the foregoing circumstances unless he actually developed a personal bias or prejudice against the defendant due to what occurred. A litigant’s actions toward or statements to a judge during the course of a judicial proceeding do not cause the judge to be disqualified unless the judge is actually influenced and develops a personal bias or prejudice as a result. Advisory Opinions 89- 391, 97-636, 98-686, and 98-695. To hold otherwise would allow a litigant to control judicial proceedings whenever a litigant becomes dissatisfied with the course of the proceedings. If the judge does not feel affected by the litigant’s actions, the judge is not disqualified. Yours truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION