Rule 2.11. Disqualification.
(A) A magisterial district judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the magisterial district judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The magisterial district judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
(2) The magisterial district judge knows that the magisterial district judge, the magisterial district judge’s spouse or domestic partner, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:
(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;
(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(3) The magisterial district judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the magisterial district judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the magisterial district judge’s family residing in the magisterial district judge’s household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or is a party to the proceeding.
(4) The magisterial district judge knows or learns that a party, a party’s lawyer, or the law firm of a party’s lawyer has made a direct or indirect contribution(s) to the magisterial district judge’s campaign in an amount that would raise a reasonable concern about the fairness or impartiality of the magisterial district judge’s consideration of a case involving the party, the party’s lawyer, or the law firm of the party’s lawyer. In doing so, the magisterial district judge should consider the public perception regarding such contributions and their effect on the magisterial district judge’s ability to be fair and impartial. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that recusal or disqualification is not warranted when a contribution or reimbursement for transportation, lodging, hospitality or other expenses is equal to or less than the amount required to be reported as a gift on a magisterial district judge’s Statement of Financial Interest.
(5) The magisterial district judge, while a magisterial district judge or a judicial candidate, has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits the magisterial district judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy.
(6) The magisterial district judge:
(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter during such association;
(b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy; or
(c) was a material witness concerning the matter.
(B) A magisterial district judge shall keep informed about the magisterial district judge’s personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the magisterial district judge’s spouse or domestic partner and minor children residing in the magisterial district judge’s household.
(C) A magisterial district judge subject to disqualification under this Rule, other than for bias or prejudice under paragraph (A)(1), may disclose on the record the basis of the magisterial district judge’s disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside the presence of the magisterial district judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the magisterial district judge or court personnel, that the magisterial district judge should not be disqualified, the magisterial district judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement, in writing and signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be attached to the record copy of the complaint form.
Comment: (1) Under this Rule, a magisterial district judge is disqualified whenever the magisterial district judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (6) apply.
(2) A magisterial district judge’s obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed.
(3) The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a magisterial district judge might be the only magisterial district judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause. In matters that require immediate action, the magisterial district judge must disclose the basis for possible disqualification and make reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another magisterial district judge as soon as practicable.
(4) The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the magisterial district judge is affiliated does not itself disqualify the magisterial district judge. If, however, the magisterial district judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under paragraph (A), or the relative is known by the magisterial district judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be substantially affected by the proceeding under paragraph (A)(2)(c), the magisterial district judge’s disqualification is required.
(5) A magisterial district judge should disclose information that the magisterial district judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the magisterial district judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.
(6) The procedure in Rule 2.11(C) is designed to minimize the chance that a party or lawyer will feel coerced into an agreement. When a party is not immediately available, magisterial district judges may proceed on the written assurance of the lawyers that their parties’ consent will be subsequently filed.
(7) Rule 2.11(A)(4) represents a first inroad into complex issues associated with the financing of judicial campaigns in the scheme prescribed by the Pennsylvania Constitution, per which judicial officers are elected by the citizenry. See Pa. Const. art. V, § 13. For example, the rule presently does not address a number of circumstances which have arisen in the context of public judicial elections, including the involvement of political action committees (‘‘PACs’’). Under the direction of an independent board of directors, such entities may aggregate then distribute individual contributions among judicial campaigns, political campaigns, their own operating expenses, and other expenditures. There is no attempt, under the present rule, to require disqualification on account of individual contributions made to a PAC, so long as the organization does not serve as the alter-ego of a specific donor or donors. Rulemaking, in this regard, would require further study and deliberation in order to appropriately balance all respective interests involved. Thus, the Court has reserved any treatment to a later time.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
