Must a family court judge recuse from a case they handled as a Child Advocate’s Office lawyer?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2005. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Commission revisited an August 9, 1994 advisory opinion about a former Child Advocate’s Office attorney who became a Family Law Master. That opinion required recusal from a case in which the person had participated as counsel. The Commission said the earlier opinion remained dispositive for a family court judge in the same situation: if the judge had been involved in a case as a Child Advocate’s Office attorney, the judge had to recuse when it came before the court later.
In practice
The stated recusal condition is the judge’s prior involvement in the same case while an attorney with the Child Advocate’s Office.
Common questions
Q: When does this opinion require recusal?
A: When the family court judge had been involved in the case as an attorney with the Child Advocate’s Office.
Q: What earlier opinion did the Commission reaffirm?
A: An August 9, 1994 opinion about a former Child Advocate’s Office attorney serving as a Family Law Master.
Background and rules framework
The letter relied on its August 9, 1994 advisory opinion about recusal after prior involvement as counsel. It did not cite a numbered canon.
Citations and references
Earlier JIC opinion: August 9, 1994 advisory opinion, as described in this letter.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2005-21, redacted
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.
JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
Post Office Box 1629
Charleston, West Virginia 25326-1629
(304) 558-0169 * FAX (304) 558-0831
October 31, 2005
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2005-21
Dear
The Judicial Investigation Commission at its recent meeting reviewed an advisory opinion dated August 9, 1994, in which an opinion was given to a Family Law Master who had previously been an attorney with the Child Advocate’s Office. It addressed cases the Family Law Master could hear which had been pending when he served in the Child Advocate’s Office. Basically, the opinion said that any case in which the Family Law Master had been involved as an attorney for the Child Advocate’s Office would require his recusal when it came before him as a Family Law Master. A copy of this opinion is enclosed for your review.
The Commission has reviewed that opinion and determined that it should still be dispositive in certain matters involving the recusal of the Family Court Judge. If the Family Court Judge had been involved in a case while an attorney with the Child Advocate’s Office, that judge would be required to recuse himself/herself if that case came before the court at any subsequent time. If there is any further question regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Fred L. Fox, II, Chairperson
Judicial Investigation Commission
FLF,II:nb
Enclosure
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2005. 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