When should a judge recuse himself?

[IndyColtsFan18]

Indiana: We have been assigned a judge to hear a case (bench trial) and we know he worked for the firm owned by the attorney representing the defendant prior to becoming a judge. This was not announced or stated in any way prior to opening statements, we found out about this after day one of the trial. Seems tome this would be a conflict of interest, possible bias (which will be near impossible to prove) or something along those lines. It's one thing for judges and attorneys to know each other from the courtroom but to have worked side by side for who knows how long seems to be a bit more than should be allowed by law. Is there anything we can do in this case?

 

[cbg]

So in your view, the judge should recuse himself from every case brought by this law firm, regardless?

 

[IndyColtsFan18]

If he has proven that he can't be fair and unbiased.... yes.

 

[Zigner]

If he has proven that he can't be fair and unbiased.... yes.

Fine, prove it.

 

[cbg]

Translation: unless he rules in my favor, yes.

 

[IndyColtsFan18]

The case aint even over yet for Gods sake. Forget I even asked.

 

[IndyColtsFan18]

"which will be near impossible to prove"

I already stated proving it would be near impossible.

 

[garrula lingua]

Judges in that position usually advise the opposing side that they had been affiliated with that law firm and leave it to the litigants as to whether they wish to waive that potential conflict (give the litigant the opportunity to challenge the Judge).

In my experience, in large cities, Judges will always recuse themselves.
In more rural areas, they risk the irritation of their fellow Judges if they automatically recuse themselves (as those cases will go to a sister-court), but they, normally, will advise the litigants of the possible appearance of a conflict.

Yes, I think the Judge should have, at least, advised you, on the record, that he previously worked for that firm. Even if he was not going to automatically recuse himself, you were due the information.

At this point, I would discuss this with your attorney, and follow the attorney's advice (your attorney should know the Judge's track record with members of his prior firm.
There is a possibility that the Judge will often be harder on his prior firm, as he does not want the stigma of bias ...

Your attorney will know if the Judge exceeds his discretion and whether his order is open to appeal for that reason. Otherwise, his decision, if adverse to you, may simply be based on the evidence, the testimony, the facts and the Judge's rightful discretion.

 

[IndyColtsFan18]

Thank you garrula, one for not insulting me and two for giving me some advice. I know he didn't say anything on the record prior to the trial starting. Being a small town in a very rural part of Indiana and already having a change of venue once because the judge in our own county was a brother in law to the opposing attorney, we ASSumed this judge now out of the county wouldn't be tied to anyone in any way. So it boils down to... he SHOULD have stated it prior to the trial starting but he did nothing illegal. All the attorneys involved have obviously seen each other many many times over the years but my guess would be that they are used to this and thought nothing of it since it's second nature to them. I'm also assuming that on my lawyers part either he thought it was no big deal and wont affect the outcome whatever that may be. I guess we'll find out...

I thank you for your time.

 

[garrula lingua]

Good luck.

... I would just be ultra prepared - don't leave everything to the attorney. Try to work with the attorney, and ensure that all bases are covered.

Make a list of what has to be proved up in court and make sure there will be a witness or party testimony to support each fact you are presenting to prove your case.
Ask your attorney as to what witnesses he will be calling, what issues he will be proving, what issues does he foresee your opponent presenting, and how he will respond to your opponent.
He should be prepared, and able to talk to you about the specifics and how he intends to present the issues.
The attorney should have his closing argument pretty much done, with just tweaking re new info during the trial.

For most people, this trial is their one shot - and they have substantial financial investment involved, as well as the original issues. Most people are frantic during a trial. It's hard to explain to those who aren't in court, but it is, usually, a draining experience for the litigants - emotionally, physically, and financially.

It's normal to worry. If you can funnel that energy into going over the issues and your witnesses, (and foresee what their witnesses and evidence will be), it may be a better use of worry time.

Again, good luck.