State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Question

An elected judge, who experienced a particularly acrimonious election campaign, has decided to voluntarily recuse from proceedings in which the judge's unsuccessful election opponent appears as attorney of record.  The decision to recuse is pursuant to CJC 2.11(A)(1) in order to avoid even the appearance that the judge's impartiality could be questioned. Members of the election opponent's law firm have asked the judge to also recuse from matters handled by other members of the law firm.  Under these circumstances, does the judge also have an obligation to recuse from matters in which members of the unsuccessful opponent's law firm appear as an attorney of record?

Answer

CJC 2.7 requires a judge to hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification or recusal is required under CJC 2.11 or other law. "Disqualification" and "recusal" is used interchangeably in Washington. See CJC 2.11, Comment [1].

Pursuant to CJC 2.11(A)(1), a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against a party's lawyer. That rule does not prohibit a judge from hearing cases merely because one of the parties is represented by an attorney that ran against an incumbent judge (See Opinion 88-16).

If the judge here has determined that the election campaign was acrimonious enough to rise to the level where the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned as it pertains to his or her former opponent, the judge should review the events and circumstances of the campaign related to each individual attorney in the opponent's law firm to determine whether the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned as it pertains to them, especially in light of a request from the firm to recuse. But the judge's decision to recuse in cases involving his or her opponent does not necessarily obligate the judge to recuse from proceedings involving the opponent's law firm.

If the judge determines that the events and circumstances during the campaign do not provide a basis for disqualification, the judge should disclose on the record information the parties or their lawyers may reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification given that members of the election-opponent's law firm have asked that the judge recuse from matters handled by the law firm.  CJC 2.11 Comment [5].

Opinion 17-01

03/08/2017