Must a Maryland judge recuse when a litigant sues the judge elsewhere and reports filing a judicial conduct complaint?

Plain-English summary

A self-represented litigant moved to disqualify an entire local bench after proceedings before the requesting judge. The motion referred to a federal case and attached messages purporting to confirm judicial disability complaints against the judge and other judicial officers. The judge asked whether the reported action or complaint required recusal.

The Committee distinguished the judge's own ability to remain fair from the objective appearance inquiry. It could not determine the judge's subjective impartiality. Assuming that impartiality continued, the Committee found no likely objective reason to question it based only on the litigant's other claims. The judge's knowledge of the litigant arose entirely from prior proceedings, and the Committee described the other complaints as apparently aimed at removing the judge and colleagues from the case.

The opinion also discusses confidentiality of Judicial Disabilities Commission proceedings and cautions about any response to a complaint disclosure. It concludes on the facts given that recusal is required if the requesting judge subjectively determines fair and impartial handling is no longer possible.

In practice

The opinion applies a two-part inquiry: the judge's own impartiality and the view of a reasonable person with knowledge of all relevant facts. It says the litigant's complaints alone are unlikely to satisfy the objective part on this record. Its footnote observes that a motion to remove every local judicial officer could implicate the rule of necessity if the litigant's claims had merit.

Common questions

Q: Does a litigant's separate lawsuit or disability complaint automatically disqualify the judge?

A: No. The Committee found no likely objective recusal ground based solely on those complaints under the facts presented.

Q: What if the judge cannot remain fair toward the litigant?

A: The opinion says recusal is then required on the subjective inquiry alone.

Q: Does the Committee itself decide whether the judge feels impartial?

A: No. It says only the requesting judge can determine the effect of the litigant's actions on the judge's own fairness and impartiality.

Q: What did the opinion say about disclosure of a judicial disability complaint?

A: The Committee said the litigant's disclosure likely was improper because Commission proceedings are confidential except as the cited constitution and rules provide. It separately discussed possible corrective measures and the rule against retaliation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 18-101.2, 18-102.7, and 18-102.11 to public confidence, the duty to decide assigned matters, and disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It cites Maryland Constitution Article IV, section 7 for constitutional disqualification and Article IV, section 4B for confidentiality of Judicial Disabilities Commission proceedings.

Citations and references

Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Rules 18-101.2, 18-102.7, and 18-102.11(a)(1), impartiality and recusal.
• Rules 18-102.15 and 18-102.16(b), corrective measures and retaliation.
• Rule 18-407, Commission confidentiality.

Constitution:

• Maryland Constitution Article IV, sections 7 and 4B.

Cases:

• Jefferson-El v. State, 330 Md. 99 (1993), duty to preside when qualified and prior judicial proceedings.
• Matter of Russell, 464 Md. 390 (2019), reasonable observer standard.
• Matter of White, 451 Md. 630 (2017), Commission confidentiality.
• Gordy v. Dennis, 176 Md. 106 (1939), rule of necessity quoted in the opinion's footnote.

Other opinions cited:

• Maryland Judicial Ethics Opinions 2025-32 and 2021-11, on recusal standards.

See also

• MD Judicial Ethics Op. 2026-28: Attorney Opposition
• NE Judicial Ethics Op. 05-2: Litigant Complaint

Source

• Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 2026-22

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 2026-22
Date of Issue: August 10, 2026
☒Published Opinion ☐ Unpublished Opinion ☐Unpublished Letter of Advice Recusal of Judge Based on Litigant’s Other Complaints about Judge Issue: Must a judge recuse from a matter in which a litigant has sued the judge in other jurisdictions and has disclosed filing a disciplinary complaint against the judge? Answer: No, unless the judge determines subjectively that the judge is unable to remain fair and impartial in the matter. Facts: The Requester is a circuit court judge. The Requester has presided in custody and protective order proceedings involving a self-represented litigant. The litigant has now moved to disqualify the Requester and every other active judge and magistrate in the Requester’s jurisdiction. In the motion, the litigant describes the “entire bench” as “future DEFENDANT [sic] in Federal Court” and refers to what appears to be a case number in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The litigant also attaches to the motion electronic mail messages that purport to confirm the litigant’s filing of complaints against the Requester and other judges with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities. The Requester asks specifically whether recusal is required based on the litigant’s disclosure that the litigant has filed an action in federal court or a judicial disabilities complaint against the Requester. Analysis: The Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct (the “Code”), Title 18, Chapter 100 of the Maryland Rules, establishes the standards for the ethical conduct of judges. The following rules are implicated here. Rule 18-101.2 provides:
(a) Promoting Public Confidence. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
(b) Avoiding Perception of Impropriety. A judge shall avoid conduct that would create in reasonable minds a perception of impropriety.
Rule 18-102.7 provides that “[a] judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge unless recusal is appropriate.” Rule 18-102.11 applies to disqualification and provides in part:
(a) A judge shall recuse in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including the following circumstances:
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 2026-22
Date of Issue: August 10, 2026
☒ Published Opinion ☐ Unpublished Opinion ☐ Unpublished Letter of Advice Page 2 of 4 (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s attorney . . . .
The Committee reviewed the standards for recusal recently in Opinion 2025-32 (Nov. 7, 2025). In Maryland, the obligation begins with a constitutional provision. Article IV of the Maryland Constitution states:
No Judge shall sit in any case wherein he may be interested, or where either of the parties may be connected with him, by affinity or consanguinity, within such degrees as now are, or may hereafter be prescribed by Law, or where he shall have been of counsel in the case.
Md. Const., art. IV, § 7. Disqualification in appropriate circumstances serves the goal “of the judicial process not only being fair, but appearing to be fair.” Jefferson-El v. State, 330 Md. 99, 107 (1993) (applying former canons of judicial conduct). At the same time, judges have a “duty to preside when qualified [that] is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified.” Id. See also Md. Rule 18-102.7. 1 0F

In addition to the constitutional inquiry, a judge considering recusal must engage in a two- step inquiry with both subjective and objective aspects. Opinion 2021-11 (June 7, 2021) at 2. Subjectively, the judge examines the judge’s own ability to remain impartial despite the potentially disqualifying influence. Id. If the judge is not confident in the judge’s own subjective impartiality, then recusal is required on that basis alone. Id. Even if the judge is confident in the judge’s ability to remain impartial, the judge also must evaluate the situation objectively to ensure that participation will not “create in reasonable minds a perception of impropriety.” Md. Rule 18-101.2(b). “[A] judge is required to recuse himself or herself from a proceeding when a reasonable person with knowledge and understanding of all the relevant facts would question the judge’s impartiality.” Matter of Russell, 464 Md. 390, 402 (2019) (citing Jefferson-El and considering recusal of member of Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities). The Committee cannot opine on the appropriate outcome of the subjective part of the necessary inquiry. The Requester must consider any effect from the Defendant’s actions

1
The duty to recuse also is qualified by the rule of necessity. “[B]oth the constitutional and statutory provisions governing recusal must yield where recusal ‘would destroy the only tribunal in which relief . . . may be sought.’ Gordy v. Dennis, 176 Md. 106, 109 (1939).” Opinion 2025-32 (Nov. 7, 2025) at 5. If there were any merit to the litigant’s claims here, the rule of necessity could be implicated because the litigant seeks recusal of every judicial officer in the jurisdiction. Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Request Number: 2026-22 Date of Issue: August 10, 2026
☒ Published Opinion ☐ Unpublished Opinion ☐ Unpublished Letter of Advice Page 3 of 4 and decide whether the Requester nevertheless is able to maintain the necessary fairness and impartiality. Assuming the Requester believes the Requester can maintain subjective impartiality, then the Committee concludes there is not likely to be an objective reason to question the Requester’s impartiality based solely on the fact that the litigant has brought or may bring other claims against the Requester. Here, the Requester’s knowledge of the litigant is based entirely on prior judicial proceedings. Information derived entirely from judicial proceedings is not considered “personal.” Jefferson-El, 330 Md. at 107. An uninformed layperson might expect the litigant’s other complaints to have a negative effect on the Requester, but the objective analysis is done from the perspective of “a reasonable person with knowledge and understanding of all the relevant facts . . . .” Matter of Russell, 464 Md. at 402. Such a person likely would understand that the litigant’s complaints are not a reasonable reaction to any action by the Requester, but a manifestation of dissatisfaction with decisions that have been adverse to the litigant. The facts presented suggest strongly that the litigant is using the other complaints tactically, to try to remove the Requester and other judges and magistrates from the matter. Judges have a responsibility to resist such tactics if they are able to maintain the necessary subjective impartiality. The Committee notes that the litigant’s disclosure of the litigant’s complaints to the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities likely was improper. The Commission on Judicial Disabilities was created by the Maryland Constitution. Md. Const. art. IV, § 4B. “The Constitution further directs that the proceedings before the Commission are confidential and privileged, except as provided by rule or order of the Court of Appeals
[now the Supreme Court of Maryland].” Matter of White, 451 Md. 630, 635–36 (2017) (citing Md. Const. art. IV, § 4B(a)(3)). See also Md. Rule 18-407. Commission proceedings become public only when a matter before the Commission is referred to the Maryland Supreme Court. Md. Const. art. IV, § 4B(a)(3); Matter of White, 451 Md. at 636. Because the litigant is not represented by an attorney, there is likely no sanction for this improper disclosure of a complaint or complaints made to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities. If an attorney were to disclose publicly that the attorney or the attorney’s client had made a complaint to the Commission, a judge might be called upon to take “appropriate corrective measures.” See Md. Rule 18-102.15. Whether reacting to a self- represented litigant or to an attorney, a judge should be cautious in taking action because the litigant or attorney may characterize any responsive action as retaliatory. See Md. Rule 18-102.16(b) (“A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or an attorney.”). Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Request Number: 2026-22 Date of Issue: August 10, 2026
☒ Published Opinion ☐ Unpublished Opinion ☐ Unpublished Letter of Advice Page 4 of 4 The Committee therefore concludes on the facts given that the Requester likely is not required to recuse for any objective reason. Recusal is required only if the Requester subjectively determines that the Requester is not able to remain fair and impartial. Application: The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee cautions that this Opinion is applicable only prospectively and only to the conduct of the Requestor described herein, to the extent of the Requestor’s compliance with this opinion. Omission or misstatement of a material fact in the written request for opinion negates reliance on this Opinion. Additionally, this Opinion should not be considered to be binding indefinitely. The passage of time may result in amendment to the applicable law and/or developments in the area of judicial ethics generally or in changes of facts that could affect the conclusion of the Committee. If the request for advice involves a continuing course of conduct, the Requestor should keep abreast of developments in the area of judicial ethics and, in the event of a change in that area or a change in facts, submit an updated request to the Committee.