Could a D.C. judge hear a case involving the District when the judge's spouse was Corporation Counsel?

Plain-English summary

A Superior Court judge asked whether the spouse's position as the District's Corporation Counsel required disqualification from matters involving the District. The Committee focused on the spouse's responsibility for District litigation and supervision of assistant counsel, even when an assistant appearing before the judge was several levels removed.

The Committee concluded that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3E(1). It included contested District cases and post-adjudication neglect reviews in its recusal conclusion. The opinion explained that the District remained a party to neglect proceedings even when an assistant corporation counsel did not appear at a routine review.

Canon 3F allowed remittal of this appearance-based disqualification. The judge could disclose the basis on the record; the parties and lawyers then had to consider waiver outside the judge's presence. Only after the required agreement, placed in the record, could the judge participate. The opinion rejected treating disclosure alone as permission to continue unless someone objected.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, before the D.C. Courts adopted the revised Code of Judicial Conduct effective January 1, 2012, as stated in the court's Advisory Opinion No. 12. Later Code provisions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on a specific procedure.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee limit recusal to cases personally handled by the spouse?

A: No. It focused on Corporation Counsel's ultimate responsibility for District litigation and concluded that several layers of assistant-counsel supervision did not remove the appearance concern.

Q: Did the opinion include routine neglect reviews?

A: Yes. The Committee treated them as District proceedings and said the judge should be prepared to recuse even if an assistant corporation counsel did not appear at a particular review.

Q: Was disclosure alone enough for the judge to continue?

A: No. Under the opinion's Canon 3F analysis, all required parties and lawyers had to agree through the remittal process, with the agreement entered in the record.

Q: Could the judge simply recuse without seeking remittal?

A: Yes. The Committee said seeking remittal was optional for the judge.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 3E(1)'s disqualification rule and its subsections concerning a spouse's interests, position, and role as a lawyer. It applied Canon 3F's remittal procedure to an appearance-based concern. The opinion also cited then-applicable D.C. statutes assigning Corporation Counsel control of District litigation and making the District a party to neglect proceedings.

Citations and references

D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct cited in the opinion:

• Canon 3E(1), including subsections (c) and (d), spouse-related disqualification.
• Canon 3F, remittal after disclosure and agreement.

Statutes:

• D.C. Code §§ 1-361 and 1-362, Corporation Counsel's duties and supervision.
• D.C. Code § 16-2305(f), District's party status in neglect proceedings.

Other opinions cited:

• D.C. Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct Opinion No. 2, a judge's spouse serving as a senior police official.
• D.C. Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct Opinion No. 6, a judge's spouse serving as an Assistant United States Attorney.

See also

• DC Judicial Ethics Op. 11: Child's scholarship and recusal
• DC Judicial Ethics Op. 13: Former clerk recusal

Source

• Landing page: D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct and advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion No. 9