Judicial disclosure of certain activities or relationships may be necessary. However, not all situations necessarily require disqualification; after disclosure in some circumstances, parties may waive disqualification1 and elect to proceed with the assigned judge. See MCR 2.003(E). State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinions have required judicial disclosure in a variety of circumstances:
•A judge is a member of an investment club with an advocate or party.
“A judge may ethically participate in an ‘investment club’ which has no lawyers as members. A judge may ethically participate in an ‘investment club’ which has lawyers who may appear before the judge. However, a judge must refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality. If other members of the investment club are lawyers that are likely to frequently come before the judge, the judge should either decide not to seek membership in the club or terminate the current membership. If the judge can reasonably conclude that members of the investment club that are lawyers are not likely to appear before the court on which the judge serve[]s, the judge may ethically participate even if it is possible that a lawyer member may appear. Should the situation arise where a fellow lawyer member of the club appears before the judge, the judge must clearly disclose relevant information regarding the membership either in writing or on the record and recuse unless asked to proceed.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-119 (May 12, 1998). See also In re Disqualification of 50th Dist Court Judge, 193 Mich App 209, 214 (1992) (“in matters in which a judge has a financial interest with an attorney appearing in the matter, the judge has a duty to disclose the relationship on the record”).
•The appearing attorney is the former personal attorney for the judge.
“If a lawyer appearing before an administrative hearing officer has previously represented the adjudicator or a member of the judge’s household on legal matters, the adjudicator and the lawyer must disclose the prior representation to all other parties and their counsel.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-102 (June 6, 1995).
“Whether a judge should recuse in such matters is a question determined on the merits of any motion for disqualification which may be filed.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-102 (June 6, 1995).
•A circuit judge, a district court magistrate, and a sheriff jointly own recreation property.
“It is not unethical for a circuit judge, district court magistrate and a deputy sheriff working in the same county to co-own recreational real estate property. The circuit judge and the district court magistrate should disclose the investment to parties and counsel when the deputy sheriff appears as a witness in a pending matter. When the circuit judge reviews decisions of the magistrate, the judge should disclose the investment to parties and counsel.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-86 (March 23, 1994). See also In re Disqualification of 50th Dist Court Judge, 193 Mich App at 214 (“in matters in which a judge has a financial interest with an attorney appearing in the matter, the judge has a duty to disclose the relationship on the record”).
•The lawyer appearing before the judge is the judge’s current campaign manager or a member of the judge’s reelection committee.
“An incumbent judge is not automatically disqualified from presiding in a matter in which a member of the judge’s reelection campaign committee appears as an advocate for a party. The judge has an affirmative duty to disclose the relationship to opposing counsel and all parties. The lawyer has an affirmative duty to disclose the relationship to the client, and, if the judge fails to make timely disclosure, to the opposing counsel.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-79 (February 7, 1994). “The duty to disclose continues until the final campaign report for the candidacy has been filed.” Id.
•The judge sits on the board of a civic organization and a member of the organization is a witness in a case before the judge.
“A judge who serves on the board of an organization whose members appear as witnesses in proceedings before the judge must disclose the judge’s membership on the board and recuse unless the parties ask the judge to proceed in the matter.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-66 (March 26, 1993).
“A judge whose affiliation with an organization results in frequent disqualification must resign from the organization.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-66 (March 26, 1993).
•An attorney representing all the judges of a court in a pending matter appears before any one of the judges on an unrelated matter.
“While litigation against the judges of a court for actions taken in an official judicial capacity is pending, and counsel for the judges appears before any of the judges in an unrelated matter, the judge must disclose the relationship to the parties and their counsel.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, J-5 (July 24, 1992).
“[A]lthough recusal is [a] question of law for the presiding judge’s initial decision, a judge has the obligation to disclose any ongoing lawyer/client relationship to all parties in any matter in which a member of the law firm representing the judge appears.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, J-5 (July 24, 1992).
•A lawyer who works for a non-profit legal aid organization for which the judge sits on the advisory board appears before the judge.
“A judge serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit legal aid organization is required to disclose the relationship when one of the parties appearing before the judge is represented by a lawyer from the legal aid organization.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-51 (April 3, 1992).
•A judge has received regular or periodic or one-time contributions from a lawyer or firm appearing before the judge.
A judge is not automatically disqualified from hearing a case in which an advocate or the advocate’s firm appears when the advocate or firm has contributed to the judge’s election. However, if “the matter over which the judge presides is a matter which affects the [contribution,] [t]he judge should disclose the relationship on the record, and recuse unless the parties ask the judge to proceed.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, J-4 (March 8, 1991). See also In re Disqualification of 50th Dist Court Judge, 193 Mich App at 214 (“in matters in which a judge has a financial interest with an attorney appearing in the matter, the judge has a duty to disclose the relationship on the record”).
•A lawyer for one of the parties is dating, living with, or married to the judge hearing the matter.
“Because of the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, a judge should always disclose to parties in a case before him or her if he or she is dating a lawyer for either of the parties.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, R-3 (July 21, 1989). Similarly, a judge must disclose if his or her “spouse is a member of or employed by a firm representing a party in a case” or if the judge is living with a lawyer for either party. Id.
•The judge and appearing lawyer are in a landlord/tenant relationship.
“A relationship between a landlord/judge and a tenant/lawyer creates the appearance of impropriety if the lawyer practices before the judge.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-6 (June 1, 1989).
“A full disclosure of the relationship must be made to all litigants, and the consent of all litigants obtained, in order to avoid a disqualification.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion, JI-6 (June 1, 1989). See also In re Disqualification of 50th Dist Court Judge, 193 Mich App at 214 (“in matters in which a judge has a financial interest with an attorney appearing in the matter, the judge has a duty to disclose the relationship on the record”).
“A judge should manage investments and other financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which the judge is disqualified. As soon as can be done without serious financial detriment, a judge should divest investments and other financial interests that require frequent disqualification.” State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion JI-6 (June 1, 1989).
1 See Section G for more information on waiver of disqualification.