Motion to Recuse Judge in Maryland

What Is a Motion to Recuse Judge?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Recuse Judge

"[T]here is a strong presumption in Maryland, and elsewhere, that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified." (See Pickett v. City of Frederick, No. 0759, at *17 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 6, 2015); Jefferson-El v. State (1993) 330 Md. 99, 107.)

“By Rule, a judge must disqualify . . . in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including[,] when a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party[.]" (See Worsham v. LifeStation, Inc., No. 661-2020, at *50 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 17, 2021); Md. Rule 18-102.11(a)(1).)

"Generally speaking, a judge is required to recuse . . . from a proceeding when a reasonable person with knowledge and understanding of all the relevant facts would question the judge's impartiality." (See id; Matter of Russell (2019) 464 Md. 390, 402.)

"On the other hand, there is a strong presumption . . . that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified." (See Worsham v. LifeStation, Inc., No. 661-2020, at *50 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 17, 2021); Md. Rule 18-102.11(a)(1); Conner v. State (2021) 472 Md. 722, 738; Jefferson-El v. State (1993) 330 Md. 99, 107.)

As such, “the party asserting that recusal is necessary has a heavy burden to overcome the presumption of impartiality and must prove that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against him or her or has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings." (See Pickett v. City of Frederick, No. 0759, at *17 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 6, 2015); Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Shaw (2001) 363 Md. 1, 11.)

Disqualification of a Judge under Rule 18-102.11

“Judges occupy a distinguished and decisive position ... [requiring them] to maintain high standards of conduct." (See In re K.H., 253 Md. App. 134, 153 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021); Jefferson-El v. State (1993) 330 Md. 99, 106, 622 A.2d 737.)

Pursuant Rule 18-102.11 of the Maryland Court Rules, a “judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including the following circumstances:

The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's attorney, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding;
The judge knows that the judge, the judge's spouse or domestic partner, an individual within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such an individual (a) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party; (b) is acting as an attorney in the proceeding; (c) is an individual who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or (d) is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;
The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or any of the following individuals has a significant financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding: (a) the judge's spouse or domestic partner; (b) an individual within the third degree of relationship to the judge; or (c) any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household;
The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate, has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy;
The judge: (a) served as an attorney in the matter in controversy, or was associated with an attorney who participated substantially as an attorney in the matter during such association; (b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as an attorney or public official concerning the proceeding, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy; (c) previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court; or (d) is a senior judge who is subject to disqualification under Rule 18-103.9.”

(See Md. R. Jud. & Judi. Appts. 18-102.11(a).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Recuse Judge

“Generally speaking, whether a judge should recuse him/herself from a pending case is a matter for the judge's discretion.” (See Cook v. Cook, No. 2, at *27-28 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 16, 2017).)

“How a judge should exercise that discretion in a particular case is governed by a combination of substantive law developed by the Court of Appeals and the pertinent provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct.” (See id.)

“A judge should recuse if presiding over an action would create in reasonable minds a perception of impropriety.” (See id.)

“Md. Rule 18-101.2. Comment [5] to Rule 18-101.2 explains that [t]he test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with competence, impartiality, and integrity is impaired." (See id.)

“When bias, prejudice or lack of impartiality is alleged, the decision is a discretionary one, unless the basis asserted is grounds for mandatory recusal. It will be overturned only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” (See Surratt v. Prince George's County (1990) 320 Md. 439, 465.)

“The standard to be applied is an objective one — whether a reasonable member of the public knowing all the circumstances would be led to the conclusion that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Recuse Judge

It is well settled that “whenever a party to any proceeding . . . makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, . . . such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned . . . to hear such proceeding.” (See Surratt v. Prince George's County (1990) 320 Md. 439, 465.)

It is also well settled that “Canon 3D of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct governs judicial recusal. That section provides in relevant part: a judge shall recuse . . . herself from a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including an instance when . . . the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer or extra-judicial knowledge of a disputed evidentiary fact concerning the proceeding. . ." (See Cannon 3(D), Md. Rule 16-813; In re Elrich S (2010) 416 Md. 15, 33.)