Source: https://www.cce-mcle.com/tests/ss6005c.htm
Timestamp: 2015-03-02 11:07:27
Document Index: 631928872

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 170', '§ 455', '§ 170', '§ 455', '§ 170', '§ 170', '§ 170', '§ 170', '§ 170']

Ethics: Judicial Disqualification
| Read the Article Pt. 1 - Pt. 2
| Take the Test
There is an important practical difference between recusal and disqualification in modern jurisprudence.
Showing actual bias from a direct pecuniary interest was the cornerstone of judicial disqualification at common law.
The concept of recusation, or disqualification based on suspicion of bias, operated in the civil law system, but was not a practice found in early English and American jurisprudence.
At common law, even a judge with a direct financial interest could preside over a matter if, by the "rule of necessity," no other judge was available.
As the U.S. Congress gradually added more grounds to the disqualification statute in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the statute began to encompass more and more bright-line rules.
Most states treat the question of judicial disqualification in a uniform manner, employing the same common standard set forth in the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct.
Most commentators espouse retraction of what they deem to be overly broad judicial disqualification statutes.
Judicial Disqualification is governed by state constitutions, and federal and state statutes and/or court rules specifically addressing the topic, whereas attorney disqualification is covered by laws concerning ethics in the legal profession.
Attorneys have a duty to seek disqualification whenever they believe-in good faith and after thorough investigation-that a judicial bias in fact exists.
Counsel's duty to make a "reasonable inquiry under the circumstances" into potential judicial bias is a low standard to meet.
Motions to disqualify a judge contain safe haven provisions.
Improper motions to disqualify are subject to Rule 11 sanctions in the federal system.
Attorneys have faced disbarment proceedings for filing frivolous motions to disqualify.
Attorneys face a subjective standard when judges consider whether to impose sanctions for frivolous disqualification motions. Accordingly, if such a motion proves unsuccessful, then averments of bias were likely made in bad faith.
Practically all unsuccessful motions to disqualify are met with some type of sanction, even if only monetary.
Simple negligence is the majority state standard used in evaluating whether sanctions should be imposed on an attorney for an unsuccessful disqualification motion: i.e., if the attorney was negligent in failing to investigate the facts supporting the motion, then sanctions are warranted.
In reality, any motion to disqualify a judge poses numerous downside risks for the moving attorney and party.
Disqualified judges have the power in some jurisdictions to transfer the case to another judge of his or her choosing.	True False
Current law and motion trends suggest that the subject of judicial disqualification is best broached as an "invitation" to the judge to consider recusal, rather than as a demand for affirmative relief.
Due to the heavy implications of bringing any motion to disqualify, counsel's decision whether to proceed will usually come down to trial strategy.
The ruling on a judicial disqualification motion is not an appealable order, but may be reviewed by writ of mandate only.
California CCP §§ 170.1-170.5 govern the area of judicial disqualification for cause in California courts, and parallel the federal disqualification statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455.
CCP § 170 adopts 28 U.S.C. § 455 word for word.
With the 1984 Amendments to § 170, a movant must now demonstrate actual bias on behalf of the judge in order to justify disqualification.
CCP § 170.2, concerning grounds which specifically do not warrant disqualification, is a unique provision, which does not exist in federal or other state laws.
A judge faced with a § 170.3 verified statement alleging facts which warrant disqualification must respond with his or her own verified statement admitting or denying the allegations.
Under § 170.3(c)(5) and (c)(6), if a judge elects to contest a judicial disqualification motion, the matter is resolved by the judge against whom disqualification is sought.
CCP § 170.6, regarding peremptory challenges to judges, applies in criminal cases, but in reality the provision is difficult to employ if the party cannot ascertain who the criminal trial judge will be.
Peremptory challenges of judges are truly peremptory in California, in that no statement or reason is required by the movant before disqualification will be granted.
The decision as to whether a peremptory challenge has been made in a timely manner is determined by a judge other than the one against whom the peremptory disqualification is sought.
CCE shall verify your MCLE credit upon receipt of your
completed test, and a $45.00 credit card payment,
by providing you with a self-study certificate.
Name Email address Firm Name Address City, State, Zip Code Telephone Fax Credit card number Expiration Date Billing address of card if different:
Address City, State, Zip Code MasterCard
VISA Check/Money Order
To take the test by mail, send a check for $45.00 payable to:
Center for Continuing Education 395 Del Monte Center, #178 Monterey, CA. 93940 or call us at: 1-800-443-MCLE.
Please allow 2 weeks to receive a copy of your results and the answer sheet. Certificates will reflect the date on which you took the test, so please be sure to date your answer sheets if submitting by U.S. Mail. Please call with any questions.