AL · rules
Ala. Canons of Jud. Ethics Canon 6
A judge should regularly file reports of his financial interests
A judge may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the
quasijudicial and extra-judicial activities permitted by these canons, if the source of such
payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in his judicial duties or
otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:
A. COMPENSATION. Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount, nor
should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.
B. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT. Expense reimbursement should be limited to the
actual cost of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where
appropriate to the occasion, by his spouse. Any payment in excess of such an amount is
compensation.
C. DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTEREST.
(1) A judge or a candidate for judicial office, at the time prescribed in Chapter 25
of Title 36 of the Alabama Code of 1975, shall file as a public document a "statement of
economic interests" on the form prepared and prescribed by the Alabama Ethics
Commission or its successor and shall disclose his or her economic interests as other state
officers or candidates are required to disclose by any state ethics law.
(2) A judge, at the time he or she takes the oath of office and on or before April 30
of each year thereafter, shall file a "disclosure statement of financial interests" with the Clerk
of the Supreme Court. The disclosure statement of financial interests shall contain a list of
the names of proprietorships, companies, corporations, and/or partnerships in which he or
she owns a financial interest and a list of the names of creditors to whom he or she owes
money.
(a) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall keep the disclosure
statement in a confidential format that is accessible by only the Clerk. A judge
may either file a completed and signed paper version of his or her disclosure
statement with the Clerk of the Supreme Court or complete and file the
disclosure statement electronically with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and sign
that statement using an electronic signature pursuant to Rule 30(G), Ala. R. Jud.
Admin.
(b) Any lawyer or litigant desiring to inquire as to a judge's possible
conflict of interest in a case in which the lawyer or litigant is involved may do so
by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Court, who shall conduct an in camera
review of the judge's disclosure statement of financial interests. If it is clear from
the face of the judge's disclosure statement of financial interests that no conflict
exists, this fact shall be made known to the lawyer or litigant making the inquiry.
If it appears to the Clerk of the Supreme Court that a conflict may exist, this fact
shall be brought to the attention of the judge and the lawyer or litigant making
the inquiry, and the judge shall forthwith make a
determination whether his or her recusal is required by law.
History
[Amended 6-5-79, eff. 6-30-79, Amended 6-12-2024; Amended 10-30-2024, eff. 1-1-2025.] Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Canon 3.A(5) and Canon 6.C., Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, effective June 12, 2024, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from __ So. 3d. Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Canon 6.C., Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, effective January 1, 2025, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from __ So. 3d.
Provenance
- Source
- judicial.alabama.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-15
- Content hash
773011bc04d3da60deb3913cb3115dca6a26a6a95520967cfbd4369e252f8121
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.