[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

3.1, 3.7 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455
The ideals of impartiality, independence, and integrity — embodied in both codes of
judicial conduct and relevant statutory regulations — support the belief that judges should
suspend judgment until all of the evidence has been introduced and, if they cannot act in
an unbiased manner, should be disqualified from that proceeding.
While performing judicial duties, judges should be mindful of their obligations to act
impartially, competently, and diligently. Competence and diligence require that judges give
priority to judicial duties, 24 exercise necessary skill in a prompt and timely manner, 25 and
properly hire and supervise court staff. 26
To promote impartiality, Canon 2 of the Model Code requires judges to “uphold and
apply the law”; 27 act without bias, prejudice, or harassment; 28 prevent external influence on
judicial conduct, 29 ensure each person the right to be heard; 30 act in a patient, courteous
manner; 31 and abstain from ex parte contact with parties 32 as well as extrajudicial
statements on pending matters. 33
Impartiality also requires that judges disqualify or recuse themselves whenever their
“impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 34 A majority of states and the federal
government also have adopted statutory standards for judicial disqualification. 35 Although
a minority of states allow for peremptory disqualification based on the simple motion of
any party, most jurisdictions require that good cause be shown to require disqualification. 36
Substantively, good cause for disqualification requires a determination that a judge’s
impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” 37 This objective standard has been
construed in hundreds of cases and codified in Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Specific circumstances when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned include
but are not limited to:
Personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the party’s lawyer, or personal
knowledge of the facts in dispute. 38
Relatives of the judge who are parties, managers of parties, lawyers in the
proceeding, likely to be a material witness, or who have more than a de minimis
interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the matter. 39
Economic interests of the judge or judge’s household in the subject matter of the
proceeding. 40
Receipt of donations to the judge’s election campaign made by parties or their
lawyers in excess of a stated amount. 41
Prior public statements by the judge that appear to commit him or her to reach a
particular result or rule in a particular way in a proceeding or controversy. 42
Prior service as a lawyer, judge, material witness, or government employee or agent
in the same matter. 43 493