Opinion 25-48

March 27, 2025

Facts/Issue:  A litigant’s attorney has advised the judge that the litigant filed a disciplinary complaint against the judge and has asked the judge to adjourn the case indefinitely while the complaint is under investigation.  The judge asks if he/she must grant the adjournment request and/or disqualify.

Discussion:   The mere fact that a litigant or attorney files a disciplinary complaint against a judge does not require the judge’s disqualification, even if the complaint is under investigation by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, provided that (1) the judge concludes he/she can be fair and impartial and (2) the Commission on Judicial Conduct has not issued a formal written complaint against the judge.[1]

Conclusion:  A judge who learns that a litigant filed a disciplinary complaint against him/her, but has not been formally charged with misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, may continue to preside in the underlying matter provided that the judge concludes he/she can be fair and impartial.  The judge is not ethically required to grant an adjournment request merely because a disciplinary complaint has been filed.

Authorities:  Opinions 24-137; 17-17; 16-129; 10-38.

---

[1] We note that, where the Commission does in fact issue a formal written complaint against a judge based on a litigant’s, attorney’s or witness’s complaint, the judge must disqualify him/herself from matters involving that complainant; adjournment is not sufficient.