Would the Committee issue an advisory opinion on a recusal motion already pending before a municipal judge?

Short answer The Committee declined to answer a request concerning a pending recusal motion, treating it as a legal issue for an adversarial proceeding rather than advisory review.

Bar

JUDICIAL-AR

Issued

March 5, 1992

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A municipal judge sought an advisory opinion about a pending motion asking for her recusal. The Committee declined to respond to that specific request.

It invoked its earlier Opinion #91-06-03 on recusal motions, saying such questions were legal issues for an adversarial setting. The letter gave no ruling on whether the judge should recuse.

Currency note

This opinion predates the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct that took effect July 1, 2009, as stated in JEAC Opinion 2009-04. Later rules and opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on a specific rule.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee resolve the pending recusal motion?

A: No. It said it could not respond to the specific request.

Q: What forum did the Committee identify for the issue?

A: It referred to an adversarial proceeding rather than advisory committee review.

Background and rules framework

The Committee cited its Opinion #91-06-03 for the jurisdictional line between advisory ethics opinions and pending recusal motions. It did not interpret a numbered canon in this short response.

Citations and references

Arkansas JEAC Opinion #91-06-03, cited regarding recusal questions.

Source

Landing page: https://jddc.arkansas.gov/opinions/opinion-no-92-01/

Original opinion text

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

March 5, 1992

Honorable Connie B. Barksdale

P.O. Box 4089

Horseshoe Bend, AR 72512

RE: Advisory Opinion # 92-01

Dear Judge Barksdale,

In your status as the Melbourne Municipal Judge, you have sought an advisory opinion with regard to a pending motion for recusal.

In our Opinion #91-06-03 we Committee should not address such motions which are "issues of law" to be resolved in an adversary setting not an advisory committee.

Accordingly, we are not able to respond to your specific request.

Sincerely,

Bruce T. Bullion, Chair

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1992. 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