Disqualification

(A) A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) The judge or the judge's spouse or domestic partner, or a person within the third degree of relationship, calculated according to the civil law system, to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person: (a) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (b) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (c) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (d) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceedings. (3) The judge knows that, individually or as a fiduciary, the judge or the judge's spouse or domestic partner or minor child residing in the judge's household has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; Comment: This Rule, for example, would disqualify the judge if a parent, grandparent, uncle or aunt, brother or sister, or niece or nephew of the judge or the judge's spouse or domestic partner, or the spouse or domestic partner of any of the foregoing were a party or lawyer in the proceeding, but would not disqualify the judge if a cousin were a party or lawyer in the proceeding. The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a lawyer-relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. Under appropriate circumstances, the fact that "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" under Rule 2.11(A), or that the lawyer-relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be "substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding" under Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c), may require the judge's disqualification. (4) The judge (a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it, or the judge was associated in the practice of law within the preceding year with a law firm or lawyer acting as counsel in the proceeding; Comment: A lawyer in a government agency does not ordinarily have an association with other lawyers employed by that agency within the meaning of Rule 2.11(A)(4)(a); a judge formerly employed by a government agency, however, should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such association. (b) served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy. (B) A judge should keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge's spouse or domestic partner and minor children residing in the judge's household. (C) A judge disqualified by the terms of Rule 2.11, except a disqualification by the terms of Rule 2.11(A)(1) or Rule 2.11(A)(4), may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of the 13 judge's disqualification. If the parties and their lawyers, after such disclosure and an opportunity to confer outside of the presence of the judge, all agree in writing or on the record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding. Comment: This procedure is designed to minimize the chance that a party or lawyer will feel coerced into an agreement. When a party is not immediately available, the judge without violating this section may proceed on the assurance of the lawyer on the record that his party's consent will be subsequently obtained.