| dc.description.abstract |
states and an important focus of discussion and debate on ways to improve both thereality – and the public perception – of the fairness and impartiality of our court system. Thatfocus has been sharpened because of intense public scrutiny and criticism in several highlypublicized cases2 of refusals by judges to recuse themselves in circumstances where “the judge’simpartiality might reasonably be questioned.”3The ABA has traditionally taken a leading role in providing guidance to the States4 onmatters of judicial ethics and judicial conduct. Since 2007, SCJI has been working on its JudicialDisqualification Project (JDP). The JDP has conducted research, solicited comments onparticular ideas and proposals (primarily within the ABA but also from certain outside entitieswith a strong interest in the area, such as the Conference of Chief Justices), and gradually refinedthe thinking of the Committee’s membership on these issues. The goal has been to surveydisqualification rules and practices in state courts around the country, to identify problems anduncertainties that arise under existing regimes, and, if and as appropriate, to propose reforms.Nothing in this Report or the accompanying Resolution is intended to apply to Article III or otherfederal courts.5RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges states to establish clearly articulatedprocedures for judicial disqualification determinations and prompt review of denials of requeststo disqualify. FURTHER RESOLVED, That in the event a motion to disqualify a judge is denied on themerits, the denial should be promptly reviewed by another judge at the same court level as thejudge who denied the motion. FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ABA urges states in which judges are subject to elections ofany kind to adopt:A. Disclosure requirements for litigants and lawyers who have provided, directly orindirectly, campaign support in an election involving a judge before whom theyare appearing. These disclosure requirements would facilitate a determination ofwhether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. B. Guidelines for judges about their disclosure obligations and the circumstances inwhich presiding over a case involving litigants or lawyers who previouslycontributed to an election involving the judge might reasonably be perceived ascalling the judge’s impartiality into question. C. Improved case management systems or other resources to help judges promptly identify recusal issues. |
