CT · rules

Conn. Code Jud. Conduct R. 2.11

Disqualification

activein force · 2024-01-01 – presentact-effective-date

(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, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee

of a party;

(B) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

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 household, has an economic interest in the subject matter 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 participated 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

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.

Rule, other than for bias or prejudice under sub-section (a) (1), may ask the parties and their lawyers 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 contribution 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.

History

(Effective Jan. 1, 2011.) (Amended June 15, 2018, to take effect Jan. 1, 2019; amended June 9, 2023, to take effect Jan. 1, 2024.) 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 disqualifi- cation. 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. (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.

Provenance

Source: jud.ct.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-15
Edition: 2026-09-15
Content hash: c2d591844a061db96d9ad2cc36e2ec3e3178f6ca68f3b9ec4af3cb2964597009

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs