Judicial Disqualifications — Strategic and Tactical Considerations, Judge Shopping

“Wise COMMUNICATIONS, Holding, INC. v. Global TEL-Connection Corporation” —

• “Before the courtroom is Plaintiffs’ movement to disqualify the Mette Evans and Woodside Regulation Firm as counsel for the York County Defendants, and to reassign this and the relevant patent situation1 to District Court Decide Christopher C. Conner, who was formerly presiding in excess of the two steps until he recused. (Doc. 23.) For the following motives, the court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify counsel, but deny Plaintiffs’ motion to reassign these scenarios.”
• “On November 3, 2021, two attorneys from Mette Evans and Woodside (“MEW”) entered their appearances on behalf of York County, YCP, and Mr. Ogle (collectively, ‘the York Defendants’) in this action. (Docs. 14, 18.) The following working day, Judge Conner entered an buy in this case stating that simply because an attorney from MEW entered an appearance and the law organization was shown on his conflict list,3 he would recuse. (Doc. 19.) The order further stated that because the patent scenario was similar to the prompt situation and that reassignment of both of those would even more the pursuits of justice and judicial economy, that he was likewise recusing himself from the patent circumstance. (Id.) The two situations had been reassigned to the undersigned in accordance with the court’s assignment plan.”
• “The Third Circuit Courtroom of Appeals has not set up the typical to apply when deciding no matter whether to disqualify an lawyer whose visual appearance has resulted or will outcome in a judge’s recusal. Other circuits have regarded the question and held that disqualification may be warranted based upon consideration of sure circumstances. See, e.g., In re BellSouth Corp., 334 F.3d 914, 962-65 (11th Cir. 2003) (making use of the elements exam established forth in Robinson v. Boeing Co., 79 F.3d 1053 (11th Cir. 1996) even even though the disputed attorney’s look transpired at the outset of the situation alternatively than interrupting it just after considerable judicial financial commitment)”
• “Potential for Manipulation and Impropriety. This previous component is elusive, but important in the investigation of the prompt motion to disqualify… As discussed above, choose shopping and manipulating the random assignment of judges constitutes a danger to the orderly administration of justice. Litigants should really not be permitted to benefit from disqualification of a decide as a demo approach. McCuin, 714 F.2d at 1258. Also, there is a issue that decide-procuring could ‘become an more and potent tactical weapon in the skilled practitioner’s arsenal.’ Selkridge, 360 F.3d at 168.”

“Judicial Ethics Feeling 21-171” —

• “After the inquiring decide told their administrative or supervising judge (AJ/SJ) about a legislation firm’s attempted ex parte conversation, the regulation business started off earning problems about the inquirer to the AJ/SJ.”
• “Although the inquiring decide states that some or all of the law firm’s statements are plainly contradicted by documentary evidence, the AJ/SJ has issued an administrative purchase assigning the legislation firm’s situations in other places and has declined the judge’s modern ask for to discontinue it. The judge now asks about possible disqualification and/or disciplinary obligations the judge could have with respect to the law agency.”
• “The decide first asks, ‘if the administrative get is lifted, should really I contemplate recusing myself on all circumstances with this unique agency?’”
• “We cannot answer concerns that will be issue to numerous factual variations (see e.g. Thoughts 16-85 15-137). Here, the problem is as well hypothetical and speculative for the reason that neither we nor the inquiring decide can know what instances will exist if the administrative order is discontinued. We will have to as a result decrease to respond (see Opinions 17-140 19-63).”
• “Finally, the judge asks if they need to ‘report this attorney’s ongoing untrue complaints and ex parte discussions with another choose.’”
• “With respect to the alleged misconduct of the regulation agency or its lawyer(s), on the information offered, we imagine it is fully in the inquiring judge’s discretion to establish if the choose has info indicating a ‘substantial likelihood’ a law firm fully commited a ‘substantial violation’ of the Principles of Professional Perform (22 NYCRR 100.3[D][2]). [1] Except if the judge concludes the two prongs are achieved, the decide have to have not take any action at all with respect to the alleged misconduct.”
• “Conversely, if the judge concludes the two prongs are achieved, the judge will have to acquire “appropriate action” (id.). The problem of what motion, if any, is acceptable under the circumstances is likewise remaining to the sole discretion of the inquiring choose (see Thoughts 19-57 16-159).”