Judicial Disqualifications — Strategic and Tactical Considerations, Judge Shopping

&#8220Intelligent COMMUNICATIONS, Keeping, INC. v. International TEL-Backlink Corporation&#8221 &#8212

• &#8220Before the court is Plaintiffs&#8217 motion to disqualify the Mette Evans and Woodside Legislation Business as counsel for the York County Defendants, and to reassign this and the connected patent situation1 to District Court docket Judge Christopher C. Conner, who was previously presiding over both equally actions till he recused. (Doc. 23.) For the next good reasons, the courtroom will grant Plaintiffs&#8217 motion to disqualify counsel, but deny Plaintiffs&#8217 motion to reassign these instances.&#8221
• &#8220On November 3, 2021, two attorneys from Mette Evans and Woodside (&#8220MEW&#8221) entered their appearances on behalf of York County, YCP, and Mr. Ogle (collectively, &#8216the York Defendants&#8217) in this action. (Docs. 14, 18.) The up coming working day, Judge Conner entered an buy in this situation stating that due to the fact an lawyer from MEW entered an visual appearance and the legislation company was detailed on his conflict list,3 he would recuse. (Doc. 19.) The purchase further mentioned that due to the fact the patent case was connected to the prompt case and that reassignment of both would further more the pursuits of justice and judicial economic climate, that he was also recusing himself from the patent scenario. (Id.) Equally situations were being reassigned to the undersigned in accordance with the courtroom&#8217s assignment policy.&#8221
• &#8220The 3rd Circuit Courtroom of Appeals has not recognized the standard to use when selecting regardless of whether to disqualify an lawyer whose overall look has resulted or will final result in a decide&#8217s recusal. Other circuits have deemed the problem and held that disqualification may perhaps be warranted based mostly upon thing to consider of specified circumstances. See, e.g., In re BellSouth Corp., 334 F.3d 914, 962-65 (11th Cir. 2003) (implementing the components examination set forth in Robinson v. Boeing Co., 79 F.3d 1053 (11th Cir. 1996) even even though the disputed attorney&#8217s visual appeal occurred at the outset of the scenario relatively than interrupting it right after substantial judicial financial investment)&#8221
• &#8220Possible for Manipulation and Impropriety. This very last factor is elusive, but vital in the evaluation of the fast movement to disqualify&#8230 As talked about higher than, choose browsing and manipulating the random assignment of judges constitutes a menace to the orderly administration of justice. Litigants should really not be permitted to employ disqualification of a decide as a demo system. McCuin, 714 F.2d at 1258. On top of that, there is a worry that choose-buying could &#8216turn out to be an additional and strong tactical weapon in the proficient practitioner&#8217s arsenal.&#8217 Selkridge, 360 F.3d at 168.&#8221

&#8220Judicial Ethics Feeling 21-171&#8221 &#8212

• &#8220Soon after the inquiring decide advised their administrative or supervising judge (AJ/SJ) about a legislation firm’s tried ex parte conversation, the law business started out making problems about the inquirer to the AJ/SJ.&#8221
• &#8220While the inquiring judge states that some or all of the law firm’s promises are plainly contradicted by documentary proof, the AJ/SJ has issued an administrative purchase assigning the regulation firm’s scenarios somewhere else and has declined the judge’s modern ask for to discontinue it. The decide now asks about prospective disqualification and/or disciplinary obligations the choose could have with respect to the legislation firm.&#8221
• &#8220The choose to start with asks, &#8216if the administrative buy is lifted, need to I think about recusing myself on all situations with this distinct firm?’&#8221
• &#8220We are unable to respond to thoughts that will be topic to many factual variants (see e.g. Opinions 16-85 15-137). Here, the query is also hypothetical and speculative for the reason that neither we nor the inquiring decide can know what conditions will exist if the administrative purchase is discontinued. We need to as a result decline to answer (see Thoughts 17-140 19-63).&#8221
• &#8220Lastly, the choose asks if they will have to &#8216report this attorney’s ongoing untrue grievances and ex parte conversations with a further choose.’&#8221
• &#8220With regard to the alleged misconduct of the legislation firm or its lawyer(s), on the information introduced, we feel it is solely in the inquiring judge’s discretion to ascertain if the decide has information indicating a &#8216significant likelihood&#8217 a law firm dedicated a &#8216substantial violation&#8217 of the Policies of Experienced Carry out (22 NYCRR 100.3[D][2]). [1] Except if the judge concludes both equally prongs are fulfilled, the choose want not choose any motion at all with regard to the alleged misconduct.&#8221
• &#8220Conversely, if the judge concludes the two prongs are achieved, the decide need to just take “appropriate action” (id.). The query of what motion, if any, is proper underneath the situations is similarly remaining to the sole discretion of the inquiring choose (see Views 19-57 16-159).&#8221