A judge may be disqualified from hearing or presiding over a matter in which provable facts suggest the judge has a disqualifying conflict of interest. The related legal process of recusal of a judge is generally based on the perception of impartiality due to circumstances that suggest a conflict of interest—but not to the same degree as the facts that establish disqualification.
The standards for disqualification of a judge vary from state to state, and disqualification is rare. But a judge is generally disqualified in any proceeding in which:
(1) the judge has 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;
(2) the judge knows that, individually or as a fiduciary, the judge has an interest in the subject matter in controversy; or
(3) either of the parties may be related to the judge by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree.
In Texas, a judge may be disqualified from presiding over a case if certain conditions that suggest a conflict of interest are met. According to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge must be disqualified if they have previously served as a lawyer in the matter at hand, or if a lawyer with whom they previously practiced law served in relation to the matter during their association. Additionally, disqualification is required if the judge has a personal or fiduciary interest in the subject matter of the controversy, or if any party in the case is related to the judge by blood or marriage within the third degree. The process for challenging a judge's qualification is typically initiated by a motion for recusal or disqualification, and the standards for disqualification are designed to ensure impartiality and the appearance of fairness in the judicial process. While disqualification is relatively rare, it is an important mechanism to maintain the integrity of the legal system.
