Connecticut Committee on Judicial Ethics
Informal Opinion Summaries
2009-30 (Emergency Staff
Opinion issued September 9, 2009)
Disclosure/Disqualification; Attorneys; Canon 2 & 3
Issue:
(A) May a Judicial
Official preside over a case where a party is
represented by an attorney the Judicial Official has
retained in the past for a personal matter and whose
spouse retains on an ongoing, ad hoc basis? (B) Does
the Judicial Official have a duty to disclose and/or
recuse him/herself in a case involving an attorney
with whom the Judicial Official and his/her
immediate family have a close social relationship?
Emergency Staff Opinion:
(A)
The attorney’s ongoing, ad hoc representation of the
Judicial Official’s spouse’s business makes recusal
the proper action. Recusal, however, would not be
necessary if a different attorney from the same firm
were to handle the matter. (B) The close social
relationship between the families of the Judicial
Official and the attorney and the regular one-on-one
social breakfasts requires recusal. Recusal would
not be necessary if a different attorney from the
same firm were to handle the matter. Should the
Judicial Official decide not to accept the advice to
recuse in either case, the Judicial Official would
be well-advised to disclose the full range of
contacts/relationships (past and present) with the
attorney to all the parties involved and entertain
any motion to recuse.
Committee on Judicial Ethics