Ga. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.11
Commentary:
[1] Under this Rule, judges are subject to disqualification whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific items in Rule 2.11 (A) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.
[2] Judges should disclose on the record, or in open court, information that the court believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if they believe there is no legal basis for disqualification. The public filing of a campaign contribution disclosure report or financial disclosure statement shall be deemed disclosure to all parties of the information contained therein.
[3] The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In the latter case, the judge shall disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and use reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as possible.
[4] A disqualifying bias or prejudice may arise because the lawyer or the lawyer's firm has provided legal counsel either for or adverse to the judge, including in any personal matter or in a matter related to discipline before the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the State Bar of Georgia, or other appropriate authority.
[5] The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a 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 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) requires the judge's disqualification.
[6] 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) (6); judges formerly employed by a government agency, however, should disqualify themselves in a proceeding if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such association.
[7] See Rule 2.11 (B) and Rule 3.11 (E), addressing the judge's duty to maintain awareness of personal financial interests and those of family and related associates.
[8] A judge shall recuse when the judge knows or learns by means of a timely motion that a particular party, a party's lawyer, or law firm of a party's lawyer has within the current or immediately preceding election cycle of a judicial campaign for public election made aggregate contributions in an amount that is greater than the maximum allowable contribution permitted by law.
[9] There is a rebuttable presumption that there is no per se basis for disqualification where the aggregate contributions are equal to or less than the maximum allowable contribution permitted by law. However, because the presumption is rebuttable, a judge who knows or learns by means of a timely motion that a party, a party's lawyer, or the law firm of a party's lawyer has within the current or immediately preceding election cycle of a judicial campaign for public election made aggregate contributions permitted by law, should weigh the considerations in Rule 2.11 (A) (4) in deciding whether recusal may be appropriate.
[10] Where a motion to recuse is based upon campaign contributions to the judge and the aggregate of contributions alleged would result in a rebuttable presumption that there is no per se basis for disqualification under the provisions of this Rule, any affidavit required to be filed by court rule must specify additional facts demonstrating a basis for disqualification pursuant to the considerations set forth in Rule 2.11 (A) (4). In the absence of such additional facts, the affidavit shall not be deemed legally sufficient to require assignment to another judge under applicable court rules.
[11] In summary, Rule 2.11 (A) (4) provides that:
(i) If contributions made to a judicial candidate or to that candidate's campaign committee are permitted by the law and do not exceed the maximum allowable contribution, then there is no mandatory requirement that the judge recuse.
(ii) If (a) a judicial candidate has knowledge of a contribution made to the candidate or the candidate's campaign committee that exceeds the maximum allowable contribution permitted by law and (b) after having such knowledge, the violation is not corrected in a timely manner (i.e., usually accomplished by returning the contribution), then the judge shall recuse.
(iii) If a judge has knowledge of a pattern of contributions made by a particular party, a party's lawyer, or law firm of a party's lawyer that include contributions (a) made to a judicial candidate or to that candidate's campaign committee and/or (b) made to a third party attempting to influence the election of the judicial candidate, then the judge should consider whether recusal is appropriate in accordance with the considerations in Rule 2.11 (A) (4).
[12] A remittal procedure provides the parties an opportunity to proceed without delay, if they wish to waive the disqualification. To assure that consideration of the question of remittal is made independently to the court, judges must not solicit, seek, or hear comment on possible remittal or waiver of the disqualification, unless the lawyers jointly propose remittal after consultation as provided in Rule 2.11 (C). A party may act through counsel, if counsel represents on the record that the party has been consulted and consents. As a practical matter, judges may wish to have all parties and their lawyers sign a remittal agreement.
Ga. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.11