Rule 2.11. Disqualification

(a) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned including, but not limited to, the following circumstances: (1) The 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 pro­ ceeding. (2) The judge knows that the judge, the 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 per­ son is: (A) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, direc­ tor, 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 pro­ ceeding. (3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s house- hold, has an economic interest in the subject mat­ ter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding. (4) The judge has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy. (5) The judge: (A) served as a lawyer in the matter in contro­ versy or was associated with a lawyer who partici- pated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association; (B) served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated personally and sub­ stantially 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 judge shall keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary economic interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge’s spouse or domestic partner and minor children residing in the judge’s household. (c) A judge subject to disqualification under this Rule, other than for bias or prejudice under sub- section (a) (1), may ask the parties and their law­ yers to consider, outside the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification, provided that the judge shall disclose on the record the basis of such disqualification. If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, either in writing or on the record before another judge, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the pro­ ceeding. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a judge may contribute to a client security fund maintained under the auspices of the court, and such contri- bution will not require that the judge disqualify himself or herself from service on such a client security fund committee or from participation in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding or in any matter concerning restitution or subrogation relating to such a client security fund. (e) A judge is not automatically disqualified from sitting on a proceeding merely because a lawyer or party to the proceeding has filed a lawsuit against the judge or filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Review Council or an administrative agency. When the judge becomes aware pursuant to Practice Book Sections 1-22 (b), 4-8, 66-9, or otherwise that such a lawsuit or complaint has been filed against him or her, the judge shall proceed in accordance with Practice Book Section 1-22 (b) or 66-9. (f) The fact that the judge was represented or defended by the attorney general in a lawsuit that arises out of the judge’s judicial duties shall not be the sole basis for recusal by the judge in lawsuits where the attorney general appears. (Effective Jan. 1, 2011.) COMMENT: (1) Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be ques­ tioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of subsections (a) (1) through (5) apply. In many jurisdictions, the term ‘‘recusal’’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘‘dis­ qualification.’’ (2) A 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 judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute. In matters that require immediate action, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and make reason- able efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable. Rule 2.10 (4) 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 itself disqualify the judge. If, however, the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under subsection (a) or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be substantially affected by the proceeding under subsection (a) (2) (C), the judge’s disqualification is required. (5) The Rule does not prevent a judge from relying on personal knowledge of historical or procedural facts acquired as a result of presiding over the proceeding itself. (6) Subsection (d) is intended to make clear that the restric­ tions imposed by Dacey v. Connecticut Bar Assn., 184 Conn. 21, 441 A.2d 49 (1981), or any implications therefrom should not be considered to apply to judges contributing to a client security fund under the auspices of the court. AMENDMENT NOTE—2011: Comment (7) to Rule 2.11 was adopted by the judges of the Appellate Court on July 15, 2010, and the justices of the Supreme Court on July 1, 2010. It was not, however, adopted by the judges of the Superior Court. (7) A justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the Appellate Court is not disqualified from sitting on a proceeding merely because he or she previously practiced law with the law firm or attorney who filed an amicus brief in the matter, or the justice’s or judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the justice’s or judge’s family residing in his or her household is practicing or has practiced law with such law firm or attorney. AMENDMENT NOTE—2023: The change to this rule deletes the requirement that the judge, on the record, disclose the fact that a lawsuit or complaint has been filed against him or her, because the burden of disclosure under Section 1-22 and under Section 66-9, is on the party or attorney filing the lawsuit or complaint.