Litigation

A New Proposal Seeks Recusal Reform

By Peter Hardin

Amid a national legal debate over judges disqualifying themselves for ethical or financial conflicts, a Washington Post editorial has highlighted a new recusal proposal as offering some “improvements.”

The proposal came from the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. It has several features:

• It calls on courts to make known what judge will hear an appeal at a time sufficiently in advance of a proceeding for lawyers and litigants to act.
• A decision about disqualification would be up the individual judge at first. Then, if a party to the appeal asks for it, a court would review the initial decision, with action either by a chief judge or another judge picked as an “ethics officer.”
• A judge who steps aside from hearing a case would be required to explain his reason.

Recusal has been a topic of debate, especially since last June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Caperton v. Massey that large campaign expenditures could create an unacceptable potential for bias. You can learn more about recusal reform proposals from the Justice at Stake issues page about them, and you can also learn more from Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on May 03, 2010 (boomark / email).