Opinion 26-60

March 26, 2026

Facts/Issue:    The inquiring judge, who is relatively new to the bench, was asked by the prosecutor in an ongoing case to recuse because defense counsel hosted a fund-raiser for and donated to the judge’s judicial campaign.  Defense counsel confirmed on the record that they contributed to the judge’s campaign and lent their names as hosts to a single fund-raiser for the campaign.  The judge asks if disqualification is required here, and also asks if there is an obligation to make disclosures in the future when an attorney appearing before him/her hosted a single fund-raiser or made a campaign contribution.

Discussion:     After election day, a judge need not disclose or disqualify in cases involving an attorney who hosted a single fund-raising event for the judge, but played no other significant or ongoing role in the judge’s campaign. 

                      While a judge should be shielded from knowing the identities of his/her campaign contributors to the extent practicable, a judge’s knowledge that an attorney made a contribution does not, without more, mandate the judge’s disqualification.  After considering all appropriate factors, if the judge is confident he/she can be fair and impartial, disqualification is not required.  The ultimate determination is left to the sole discretion of the judge in light of relevant factors.

                      Thus, on these facts, disqualification is not required, as long as the judge can be fair and impartial.  This determination is left to the judge’s sole discretion, even if a party objects. 

Conclusion:     (1) Host of Single Fund-Raiser: After election day, a judge has no obligation to disclose or disqualify in matters involving attorneys who hosted a single fund-raiser for a prior year’s election campaign. 
(2) Campaign Contributor: Should the judge become aware that an attorney appearing before him/her contributed to his/her election campaign, the judge should consider all relevant factors in determining if he/she can be fair and impartial in the specific case before him/her, as explained in Opinion 23-41.  Disclosure is not otherwise required. 

Authorities:  Opinions 25-100; 23-41; 19-22; 18-35; 10-135; 04-106.