Judges Don't Like Your Recusal Requests—And There's Data to Prove It
Statistics show the majority of motions to recuse or disqualify judges fail. In fact, judges granted only 20 of the 370 motions filed across Texas during fiscal year 2019.
January 16, 2020 at 10:18 AM
4 minute read
Editor's note: This is the first story in a two-part series.
Lawyers might hesitate to file motions to recuse or disqualify judges, and for good reason: The numbers show they'll likely lose.
Statistics from the Texas Office of Court Administration show a large number of judges voluntarily recuse or disqualify themselves from cases. But when judges don't go willingly and lawyers press the issue, the vast majority refuse to step down from cases in front of them.
When a judge agrees he or she can't hear a case, getting a new judge is easy: Voluntary recusals or disqualifications of a judge accounted for 35% of the more than 7,000 new judge assignments made in Texas in fiscal year 2019, the data show.
However, when a judge resists stepping down, the odds of winning a motion to recuse or disqualify are slim.
Of the 370 such motions filed across Texas during fiscal year 2019, only 20—or about 6%— succeeded. And nearly half—39%—met their end without hearings, while judges denied the remaining 56% after a hearing.
"Lawyers are reluctant to file them, and only file them as a last resort," said Judge Ray Wheless, who handles recusal or disqualification motions as presiding judge of the First Administrative Judicial Region, which includes Dallas County. "They know if a motion to recuse is denied, they are still going to be in front of that judge. That's something they really have to think about."
This data from the Texas Office of Court Administration covers state fiscal year 2019, which ran Sept. 1, 2018 to Aug. 31, 2019. Graphic: Angela Morris/ALM
It's common for judges to recuse or disqualify themselves voluntarily, according to the data.
During fiscal year 2019, which ran from Sept. 1, 2018 to Aug. 31, 2019, regional presiding judges made 1,794 judge assignments to benches where a judge recused voluntarily, which represents 25% of the total judge assignments of the fiscal year.
Another 10%, or 675 assignments, went to benches where judges disqualified themselves voluntarily, which represents 10% of the total assignments.
Some of the voluntary recusals and disqualifications may have been prompted when a lawyer raised issues against a judge in a motion, said Lillian Hardwick, an Austin judicial ethics solo practitioner.
Even with a chance of denial, lawyers nevertheless file the motions because otherwise, they may face legal malpractice accusations from a client who argues that their attorney knew about grounds to recuse a judge, failed to do so, and it harmed a client's case, she said.
This data from the Texas Office of Court Administration covers state fiscal year 2019, which ran Sept. 1, 2018 to Aug. 31, 2019. Graphic: Angela Morris/ALM
The terms "recusal" and "disqualification" are often used interchangeably, but under Texas law, they're different, Hardwick said.
Judges are disqualified from hearing a case if they previously represented a party, are related to a party, have a financial interest in the outcome of the case or harbor a bias or prejudice so great that it would hinder due process, said Hardwick, who often serves as an expert witness in judicial recusal or disqualification hearings.
The same grounds apply to recusal, where other grounds also include if the evidence shows the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned, or if the judge has shown a personal bias or prejudice about the case's subject matter or a party, among other things.
The big difference between recusal and disqualification is what happens once the judge is off the case.
With recusal, the removed judge's rulings stand, and the new judge handles matters from then on. Meanwhile, disqualification equals erasure.
"Everything the judge has done is eliminated, and you start over," Hardwick said.
So how do lawyers get judges to step down? The second story in this series will provide advice from judges.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllConspiracy Suits Against Quinn Emanuel, Roc Nation Moved to Federal District Court
JCPenney Seeks Return of More Than $1.1M From Jackson Walker For Bankruptcy Work
3 minute readEx-Appellate Court Judges Launch Boutique Focused on Plaintiffs Appeals
2 minute readO'Melveny, White & Case, Skadden Beef Up in Texas With Energy, Real Estate Lateral Partner Hires
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250