OH · rules

Ohio Jud.Cond.R. 2.11

Disqualification

activein force · 2026-02-12 – 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 proceeding.

(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 person is any of the following:

(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;

affected by the proceeding;

(d) Likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(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) [RESERVED]

(5) The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate, 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.

(6) The judge knows that 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 person has acted as a judge in the proceeding.

(7) The judge meets any of the following criteria:

(a) The judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy or was

associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the

matter during such association;

(b) The judge served in governmental employment, and in such capacity

participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official

concerning the particular matter, or has publicly expressed in such capacity

an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy;

(d) The judge previously presided as a judge over the matter in another

court.

(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.

bias or prejudice under division (A)(1) of this rule, may disclose on the record the basis

of the judge’s disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider,

outside the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification.

If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the

judge or court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may

participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the

proceeding.

History

Comment [1] Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of divisions (A)(1) to (6) apply. A judge’s knowledge that a lawyer, law firm, or litigant in a proceeding contributed to the judge’s election campaign within the limits set forth in Rules 4.4(J) and (K), or publicly supported the judge in the campaign, does not, in and of itself, disqualify the judge. [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 or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In matters that require immediate action, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and make reasonable 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 division (A), or the rel ative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be substantially affected by the proceeding under division (A)(2)(c), the judge’s disqualification is required. [5] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification. [6] [RESERVED] Comparison to Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 is comparable to Ohio Canons 3(E) and (F) with the exception of Rule 2.11(A)(5), which has no comparable provision in the Ohio Code. Comparison to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct With two exceptions, Rule 2.11 is comparable to Model Rule 2.11. Division (A)(4), relative to the disqualification of a judge who receives a campaign contribution in excess of a specific amount, is not adopted, in part because Rule 4.4 contains what are considered reasonable contribution limits applicable to individuals and organizations, including parties, lawyers, and law firms. Division (A)(6) is new language that addresses disqualification when a judge’s spouse has previously acted as a judge in the same proceeding. This provision is comparable to Ohio Canon 3(E)(1)(d)(iii) but is not found in the Model Code. Comment [1] is modified to remove a reference to the fact that some jurisdictions use interchangeably the terms “recusal” and “disqualification” and to indicate that the mere receipt of a campaign contribution within the permissible limits set forth in Ru le 4.4 is not grounds for disqualification. Comment [6] is stricken because it merely restates the definition of “economic interest” found in the Terminology section.

Provenance

Source: supremecourt.ohio.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-14
Edition: 2026-09-14
Content hash: 87e3c7591f9e85a597f3245e2560d37e26c4be8aaf80b90dc0a8b85226f65f21

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