ABA-522
|
| (Although judges must disqualify themselves “in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,“ judges’ failure to do so might trigger lawyers’ ethical duties as officers of the court to disclose information “that the lawyer knows is reasonably likely to give rise to a judicial disqualification obligation” - although that duty is subject to lawyers’ confidentiality duty to their clients. In their role as “officers of the court,“ lawyers may have disclosure duties about such issues as “unaddressed procedural deficiencies,” “controlling adverse legal authority under Rule 3.3(a)(2),” etc. (although that disclosure duty does not apply to information that “does not call the court jurisdiction into question“ or impact the “fair administration of justice“ – such as a statute of limitations defense that the adversary might assert an affirmative defense). Lawyers’ duty to disclose possible grounds for judicial disqualification could come from prior employment connections, campaign contributions, the judges’ family members’ involvement or relationships. Lawyers “must rectify” a “procedural deficiency” that goes to the “structural integrity of the proceeding.” Because lawyers must also comply with their duty to keep client confidences, such disclosures affecting judicial disqualification might implicate Rule 1.6’s duty to “comply with other law“ confidentiality exception, or Rule 3.3’s “fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding” confidentiality exception. Lawyers complying with their disclosure duty should provide the information “directly to the judge, with notice to opposing counsel”). |