From Principles to Rules: The Case for Statutory Rules Governing Aspects of Judicial Disqualification

The common law “reasonable apprehension of bias” test for judicial disqualification is highly fact- and context-specific. While there are good reasons for this approach as a general proposition, it also gives rise to considerable uncertainty for both judges and litigants in considering whether or not it is appropriate for a judge to sit in a marginal case. This article explores statutory judicial disqualification regimes in the United States, Germany, and Quebec to gain insights into how statutory rules can be employed to provide greater clarity to judges and litigants who are addressing situations that have the potential to give rise to judicial disqualification. Using these insights, the authors then propose the use of statutory rules to address problem areas with respect to professional relationships with former colleagues and clients, prior judicial involvement with litigants, extrajudicial writings, and procedures for making determinations concerning judicial disqualification