|
|
|
No "Judicial Discovery" Required When Considering Judge Recusal
(October 2009) By Lydia S. Hu, Associate.
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Abrishamian v. Barbely, No. 1370 (Md. October 5, 2009)
(October 2009)
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that the trial
court judge need not recuse himself when the judge's brother had rendered legal
services to Appellee Barbely years earlier. No judicial discovery is required in
deciding whether recusal is required.
In late 2004, Barbely was driving through a shopping center
when he struck Abrishamian, a pedestrian. Abrishamian's leg and knee were
severely injured, prompting the instant lawsuit. During a pre-trial conference
with the trial court judge, both parties learned that the judge's brother had
performed legal services for Barbely approximately seventeen years prior. It
also seemed that the same brother performed other legal services to a certain
"Vicky Barbely," whom Appellee Barbely admitted knowing but never identified the
exact relationship. Abrishamian moved for recusal, and the trial court denied
the motion.
A judge's refusal to recuse himself is evaluated on an abuse
of discretion standard. The appellate court will disturb the trial court's
ruling only if no reasonable person would have adopted that position, when the
court acts without reference to any guiding rules, or when the ruling does not
flow logically from the findings.
Judicial recusal is codified in the Canons of Judicial
Conduct at MD. RULE 16-813. "Recusal is required where a judge knows that a
family member ‘has a significant financial interest in . . . a party to the
proceeding[,]' and where an individual within the judge's third degree of
relationship ‘is known by the judge to have a significant financial interest
that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.'" Abrishamian, No. 1370,
at 5 (citing MD. RULE 16-813 Canon 3D(1)(c), (d)(i, iii)).
The record showed that at the time the judge's brother
rendered legal services to Barbely, the judge and brother were in private
practice together. There was nothing to indicate that the judge continued to
have any direct interest in the law firm, so the relevant question is whether
the brother maintained any interest that would implicate RULE 16-813 to require
recusal. Facts showed that the brother's legal fees were earned and paid over
ten years before the instant matter went to trial. Further, there was nothing to
show that the brother continued to have an interest in this case or the parties.
Thus, the brother maintained no significant financial interest in the parties in
this proceeding that required judicial recusal.
Abrishamian further argued that the judge failed to make
sufficient inquiry into the potential grounds for recusal. He took the position
that the record must show all relevant facts concerning the judge's relationship
with his brother and the law practice, and the brother's relationship with the
parties to the instant matter. The Court of Special Appeals rejected this
argument and explained that the trial court need not perform judicial discovery
in exercising its discretion. It is sufficient to show that the court analyzed
relevant facts known to it.
|
|
|
Top
