A judge is disqualified and shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(1) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) the judge served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a witness concerning it;
(3) the judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household has an economic interest in the subject matter of the controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any other more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(4) the judge acted in an official capacity in any inferior court;
(5) the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(a) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of a party;
(b) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;
(6) the judge, while a judge or a candidate for judicial office, has made a public statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to:
(a) an issue in the proceeding; or
(b) the controversy in the proceeding.
B. Duty to be informed.
A judge shall use reasonable efforts to keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge's spouse and minor children residing in the judge's household. In keeping informed about the judge's personal economic and fiduciary interests, the judge may rely on representations of professional investment or financial advisors.
C. Remittal of disqualification.
A judge disqualified by the terms of Paragraph A of this rule may disclose on the record the basis of the judge's disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, out of the presence of the judge, whether to waive disqualification. If following disclosure of any basis for disqualification other than personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the parties and lawyers, without participation by the judge, all agree that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.
As used in this rule:
(1) "de minimis" means an insignificant interest that could not raise reasonable question as to a judge's impartiality;
(2) "economic interest" means ownership of a more than de minimis legal or equitable interest, or a relationship as officer, director, advisor or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(a) ownership of an interest in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not an economic interest in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund or a proceeding pending or impending before the judge could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(b) service by a judge as an officer, director, advisor or other active participant in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization, or service by a judge's spouse, parent or child as an officer, director, advisor or other active participant in any organization does not create an economic interest in securities held by that organization;
(c) a deposit in a financial institution, the proprietary interest of a policy holder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association or of a member in a credit union, or a similar proprietary interest, is not an economic interest in the organization unless a proceeding pending or impending before the judge could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(d) ownership of government securities is not an economic interest in the issuer unless a proceeding pending or impending before the judge could substantially affect the value of the securities; and
(3) "third degree of relationship" means the following persons are relatives within the third degree of relationship: great grandparent, grandparent, parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, grandchild, great grandchild, nephew or niece.
[Approved, January 1, 1984; as amended, effective February 16, 1995; August 31, 2004.]
Paragraph A. Recusal
Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Paragraph A of this rule 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 law firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.
A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.
By decisional law, 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 must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and use reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.
The fact that an employee of the court is a party to the proceeding does not of itself disqualify the judge. The judge shall consider the specifics of the case in determining whether the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned and if a recusal is required.
Paragraph A (1) and (2)
A lawyer in a governmental agency does not necessarily have an association with other lawyers employed by that agency within the meaning of Subparagraph (2) of Paragraph A; a judge formerly employed by a governmental agency, however, should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding if the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such association.
Paragraph A (3)
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 Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph 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 Paragraph A(5)(c) of this rule may require the judge's disqualification.
Paragraph A (6)
Subparagraph (6) of Paragraph A prohibits a judge from pre-judging an issue. This Subparagraph is not intended to limit any comment allowed under Rule 21-500 NMRA.
Paragraph C. Remittal of disqualification
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 of the judge, a judge 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 the rule. A party may act through counsel if counsel represents on the record that the party has been consulted and consents. As a practical matter, a judge may wish to have all parties and their lawyers sign the remittal agreement.
[Revised, August 31, 2004.]
The commentary relating to A(6) is not a part of the ABA commentary.
The 2004 amendments, effective August 31, 2004, added a new Subparagraph (6) of Paragraph A providing for the recusal of a judge in a judicial proceeding if the judge, while a judge or a candidate for judicial office, made a public statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to an issue or controversy in the judicial proceeding proceeding; and added Paragraph A (6) of the committee commentary.