Sentences with phrase «judicial disqualification»
Simply put, "judicial disqualification" means when a judge is removed or disqualified from a legal case because they may have a conflict of interest or bias that could prevent them from making fair and impartial decisions. Full definition
The legal test is thus one of reasonable apprehension which is the sole standard for judicial disqualification in Canadian law.
claytonrice.com
The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility along with the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline were charged by the ABA with investigating the issue of judicial disqualification and proposing changes to the Model Code of Judicial Conduct.
Refining the Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Test: Providing Judges Better Tools for Addressing Judicial Disqualification Jula Hughes & Philip Bryden 36:1 Dalhousie Law Journal (2013) 171 - 192
This rule aims to deal with judicial disqualification.
Understanding Caperton: Judicial Disqualification Under the Due Process Clause, 42 McGEORGE L. REV. 65 (2010).
Panelist, «A Conversation about Judicial Disqualification: Reasonable People Discuss Impartiality,» 22nd National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, Chicago, IL (October 26 - 28, 2011)
The «reasonable apprehension of bias» test for judicial disqualification has been a fixture of Canadian law for many years, at a minimum since its formulation in... [more]
This committee is also focused on promoting diversity on the bench, and continued work and promotion of the Judicial Disqualification Project.
Further, in August 2011, after an extensive ABA study on judicial disqualification requirements, the ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution encouraging states to require disclosure from «litigants and lawyers who have provided, directly or indirectly, campaign support in an election involving a judge before whom they are appearing» (2011 Resolution 107, Judicial Disqualification and Disclosure).
Taking Caperton into account, most states have set their own standards for judicial disqualification, with the considerations and contribution limits varying somewhat from state to state.
Beginning with a review of a number of leading Canadian and other common law decisions on judicial disqualification, we explore the implications of the divergent strands of thinking that emerge in the jurisprudence to improve our understanding of the Canadian jurisprudence and then move to a discussion of the substantive rules governing judicial disqualification in six categories of cases.
First, for an impressive descriptive study of judicial disqualification appeals from 1980 to 2007, see Sande L. Buhai, Federal Judicial Disqualification: A Behavioral and Quantitative Analysis, 90 Or.
Judicial disqualification is warranted if the judge is actually biased or prejudiced or if the judge, based on objective and reasonable perceptions, has either a serious risk of actual bias impacting the due process rights of a party or has failed to adhere to the appearance of impropriety standard set forth in Canon 2 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.