Motion to Recuse Judge in Montana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Recuse Judge

“[D]isqualification questions in the Montana state courts are governed by the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct and, because the Code provides more protection than due process requires, most disputes over disqualification will be resolved without resort to the Constitution.” (See In re Conservatorship of A.M.M. (2016) 384 Mont. 413, 421.)

“The well-established common law rule is that recusal is required when a judge has a direct, personal, substantial, or pecuniary interest in a case.” (See Bullman v. State (2014) 321 P.3d 121, 124.)

“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including if the judge has a personal bias or personal knowledge of the facts in dispute.” (See In re Conservatorship of A.M.M. (2016) 384 Mont. 413, 421.)

“A judge shall also disqualify himself if the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy.” (See Bullman v. State (2014) 321 P.3d 121, 124; Mont. Code of Jud. Conduct 2.12(A) (5)(a).)

Rules for Filing a Motion to Recuse Judge

Part 8, Section 3-1-805 of the Montana Code governs disqualification for cause.

“This section is limited in its application to judges presiding in district courts, justice of the peace courts, municipal courts, small claims courts, and city courts.” (See Mont. Code § 3-1-805.)

“Whenever a party to any proceeding in any court shall file an affidavit alleging facts showing personal bias or prejudice of the presiding judge, such judge shall proceed no further in the cause.” (See Mont. Code § 3-1-805(1).)

“If the affidavit is filed against a district judge, the matter shall be referred to the Montana Supreme Court. If the affidavit is in compliance with subsections (a), (b), and (c) below, the Chief Justice shall assign a district judge to hear the matter.” (See id.)

“If the affidavit is filed against a judge of a municipal court, justice court, or city court, any district judge presiding in the district of the court involved may appoint either a justice of the peace, a municipal judge or a city court judge, to hear any such proceeding.” (See id.)

“The affidavit for disqualification must be filed more than thirty (30) days before the date set for hearing or trial.” (See Mont. Code § 3-1-805(1)(a).)

“The affidavit shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that the affidavit has been made in good faith. An affidavit will be deemed not to have been made in good faith if it is based solely on rulings in the case which can be addressed in an appeal from the final judgment.” (See Mont. Code § 3-1-805(1)(b).)

“Any affidavit which is not in proper form and which does not allege facts showing personal bias or prejudice may be set aside as void.” (See Mont. Code § 3-1-805(1)(c).)

“The judge appointed to preside at a disqualification proceeding may assess attorneys fees, costs and damages against any party or his attorney who files such disqualification without reasonable cause and thereby hinders, delays or takes unconscionable advantage of any other party, or the court.” (See Mont. Code § 3-1-805(1)(d).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Recuse Judge

“In considering whether recusal is appropriate in a given case, whether on motion of a party or on personal reflection, we must err on the side of caution.” (See Lutz v. National Crane (1994) 267 Mont. 368, 391.)

“It is within a judge's discretion to determine if his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned and the judge should thus disqualify himself or herself from hearing a matter.” (See State v. Johnston, PR 22-0001, at *1 (Mont. Feb. 16, 2022).)

“However, the allegation of an appearance of impartiality is insufficient grounds for disqualification.” (See id.)

“The denial of a motion to disqualify is within a district court's discretionary powers, and therefore we will review its decision for an abuse of discretion.” (See Schuff v. A.T. Klemens Son (2000) 303 Mont. 274, 285.)

“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice." (See Ward v. Van Dyke (In re A.P.V.W.) (2022) MT 159, 5; Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Electric Co-op (1998) 292 Mont. 118, 121.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Recuse Judge

It is well settled that “in the absence of either: (1) a disqualification order by a different judge following a disqualification proceeding, or (2) the presiding judge’s decision to recuse for reasons stated in the Montana Rules of Judicial Conduct, a judge has an equally strong duty not to recuse when the circumstances do not require recusal.” (See Boland v. Boland (In re Estate of Boland) (2019) 397 Mont. 319, 334.)

It is also well settled that “Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoids the appearance of impropriety.” (See In re Pub. Reprimand & Suspension Under Rule 10(G) of the Judicial Standards Procedural Rules, PR 19-0677, at *2 (Mont. May 11, 2023).)