Must a judge recuse when a former marital master with whom the judge worked appears as counsel?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2012. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A judge had approved hundreds of recommendations from a marital master who later appeared as counsel in a case before that judge. The Committee assumed a collegial professional relationship.
The opinion said actual bias or prejudice would require disqualification. Without it, the stated facts did not trigger mandatory disqualification under Rule 2.11.
The judge nevertheless had to disclose the former professional relationship to parties and counsel for a reasonable period. The Committee said one year should usually suffice, and a resulting recusal motion could be granted or denied according to the circumstances.
Common questions
Q: Does the prior professional relationship automatically require recusal?
A: No. Assuming no actual bias or prejudice, the Committee found no mandatory disqualification on the stated facts.
Q: Must the judge disclose the prior relationship?
A: Yes. The Committee required disclosure for a reasonable period and said one year should satisfy most cases.
Q: What happens if disclosure prompts a motion to recuse?
A: The opinion leaves the judge discretion to grant or deny it based on the particular circumstances.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11(A) and (C), including the rule’s disclosure commentary, to a former professional relationship between a judge and counsel.
Citations and references
New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 2.11(A), (C), and comment 5. Case cited: Blaisdell v. City of Rochester, 135 N.H. 589 (1992).
See also
Source
- Landing page: New Hampshire Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 2012-ACJE-03
- Archived official PDF: reviewable capture
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2012. 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