May a judge hear a case handled by a lawyer at the firm employing the judge’s daughter?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. 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 judge’s daughter was a salaried associate at a firm that often appeared in the judge’s court. The judge asked about cases handled by her colleagues and whether disclosure would suffice.
The Committee concluded that the judge should recuse from any case involving a lawyer from that firm. It reasoned that the daughter could benefit from the firm’s results through compensation or reputation even without direct involvement.
The opinion discussed remittal after disclosure under former Canon 3D but characterized it as an option to use sparingly. Its actual conclusion called for recusal across the firm’s appearances.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989, before Nebraska's adoption of the 2011 Revised Code of Judicial Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement.
Common questions
Q: Could the judge hear a case handled only by the daughter’s colleague?
A: No. The Committee called for recusal whenever any firm lawyer appeared.
Q: Did the daughter’s fixed salary remove the concern?
A: No. The opinion said firm success could still affect an associate through bonuses or raises.
Q: Did disclosure alone resolve the question?
A: The Committee discussed formal remittal as an alternative, but its stated conclusion was recusal.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Nebraska Canons 1, 2, 3C(1) and 3D, plus Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-315, to a judge’s family member employed by an appearing law firm.
Citations and references
Former Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3C(1), and 3D. Statute cited: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-315. Cases discussed: SCA Services, Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110 (1977); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Nebraska Judicial Ethics Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 89-3
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1989. 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