Did a litigant's separate lawsuit against the judge disqualify the judge from the litigant's pending cases?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A party sued the judge and others over rulings and alleged inaction in two cases. One underlying case still involved attorney-fee liens after settlement; the other awaited a summary-judgment ruling.
The Commission said filing the collateral suit did not itself disqualify the judge from either matter, during or after the suit. Otherwise, litigants could choose judges by suing those they disliked.
The opinion preserved a specific limit: if the lawsuit caused the judge to develop actual personal bias or prejudice toward the party, Canon 3C(1)(a) required recusal.
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 lawsuit itself require recusal?
A: No. The Commission found no automatic disqualification on the stated facts.
Q: Would the result change if the judge developed bias?
A: Yes. Actual personal bias or prejudice caused by the lawsuit would require recusal.
Background and rules framework
Alabama Canon 3C(1)(a) addressed personal bias or prejudice. The Commission distinguished an unwanted collateral suit from a suit that actually influenced the judge against a party.
Citations and references
The opinion cites Alabama Canon 3C(1)(a), Advisory Opinions 77-29, 83-176, 86-273, 90-403, and 92-452, and L. Abramson, Judicial Disqualification Under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (2d ed. 1992).
See also
Source
-
Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
-
Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 98-710
-
Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
98-710
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
November 13, 1998
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion whether a judge is disqualified from ruling in two cases due to one of the parties having filed a lawsuit against the judge, among others. The lawsuit complains of rulings and failure to rule or to take other action, which the plaintiff attributes to misconduct. One of the cases before the judge was settled, but the Court retained jurisdiction to determine the validity and amount of claimed attorney fee liens related to the settlement proceeds. The other case is pending a ruling by the Court on a summary judgment motion. It is the opinion of the Commission that you are not disqualified to rule in the two cases at issue, either during the pendency of the lawsuit against you or after disposition of that lawsuit, unless you develop an actual, personal bias as a result of that suit. “‘A lawsuit pending between a judge and a party may be good cause of recusation, but a party cannot disqualify a judge to sit in his case by bringing an action against him after the principal suit is commenced.’ Absent a showing that a judge in fact is influenced adversely as a result of a ‘collateral’ lawsuit, disqualification serves no purpose because the party would join any judge as a party who becomes connected with the original case. To permit wholesale disqualification in this situation would allow litigants to choose their judge by filing lawsuits against all judges not to their liking. Equally important, impugning the integrity of a judge should not lead to disqualification when based on nothing more than the speculation or conjecture of pleadings.” L. Abramson, Judicial Disqualification Under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct 36 (American Judicature Society, 2nd ed. 1992) (footnotes omitted). This Commission has consistently held that the mere filing of a lawsuit against a judge by a litigant based on the judge’s actions in a pending case is insufficient to cause the judge’s disqualification in that case. Advisory Opinions 92-452, 90-403, 86-273, 83- 176, and 77-29. To hold otherwise would allow a litigant to control the selection of his trial court judge, and could cause orderly court processes to become chaotic. However, disqualification is required if the litigant’s actions cause the judge to develop a “personal bias or prejudice” regarding the litigant. Canon 3C(1)(a). Yours truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1998. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace