The American Bar Association (“ABA”) recently issued an opinion providing guidance on when judges should recuse themselves due to personal relationships with lawyers or involved parties. JUDICIAL
The Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 lists some familial and personal relationships that would require judges to disqualify themselves, but fails to address other types of relationships that may impact judicial impartiality. The ABA opinion seeks to fill in the gaps by identifying three categories of relationships that may create ethical obligations for judges: (1) acquaintanceships; (2) friendships; and (3) close personal relationships.
First, a judge need not disqualify himself or herself if a lawyer or a party is an acquaintance, nor must he or she disclose acquaintanceships. An acquaintance is described as a relationship a judge has with a lawyer that is coincidental or relatively superficial, whereby neither party seeks contact with the other. Examples of acquaintanceships include a judge and a lawyer belonging to the same gym, living in the same neighborhood, or attending the same religious service. Involvement in a case with an acquaintance is not a reasonable basis alone for doubting a judge’s impartiality.
Second, whether a judge must recuse himself or herself because of a friendship or provide disclosure depends on the circumstances. Friendship implies a stronger connection than acquaintanceship, but “not all friendships are the same”—some friends live in different cities and stay in touch through infrequent correspondence, while other friends may visit each other’s homes or vacation together. Accordingly, whether to disclose information about a friendship to the other lawyers or parties is up to the judge. If a judge discloses the friendship and a party objects to the judge’s continued participation in the case, the judge has discretion to continue to preside over the case or disqualify himself or herself.
Third, if a judge maintains an intimate or close personal relationship to a lawyer or party, the judge must provide full disclosure. If after providing disclosure, a party objects to the judge’s participation in the proceeding, the judge can decide whether to remain on the case or recuse himself or herself. However, if a judge has a romantic relationship, or desires or is pursuing such a relationship, the judge must disqualify himself or herself.
Regardless of how the relationship is characterized, the lawyers and parties may waive disqualification to keep a judge on the case despite a potential conflict. Overall, the opinion emphasizes that judges are in the best position to assess whether their impartiality is at risk, and judicial disqualification is the exception rather than the rule.
Read the opinion here.
