Can I get a different Judge ?

Image via Wikipedia

The answer is that it is extremely difficult but not impossible and as with many issues in New Jersey family law, depends on the unique facts of each case.  However, without an objectively reasonable belief that a judge cannot be fair or impartial, it is unlikely.

To obtain a different judge, a motion must first be made to the judge you want to disqualify, who then hears the motion and decides whether to transfer the case to a new judge.  A motion to disqualify is "entrusted to the 'sound discretion' of the trial judge whose recusal is sought."  Panitch v. Panitch, 339 N.J. Super. 63, 66 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting Magill v. Casel, 238 N.J. Super. 57, 63 (App. Div. 1990)).

New Jersey Court Rule: 1:12-1 describes when a judge should decide not to hear a case and transfer the matter to a different judge, these include when he/she:

(a) is by blood or marriage the second cousin of or is more closely related to any party to the action;

(b) is by blood or marriage the first cousin of or is more closely related to any attorney in the action. This proscription shall extend to the partners, employers, employees or office associates of any such attorney except where the Chief Justice for good cause otherwise permits;

(c) has been attorney of record or counsel in the action; or

(d) has given an opinion upon a matter in question in the action; or

(e) is interested in the event of the action; or

(f) when there is any other reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so.

An example of giving an opinion might be where the judge has addressed a public event or given an interview and shown they already have an opinion on an issue e.g. gay rights -  it does not refer to a previous judicial opinion or order on a matter.

Indeed, if a judge has previously ruled against you, there is no right to have a different judge in the hope they might see things differently. "An adverse ruling in prior proceedings does not warrant disqualification."  State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 276, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850 (1997). In the absence of evidence that the trial judge's continuance might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing or judgment, recusal would be improper. Clawans v. Schakat, 49 N.J. Super. 415, 420 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 27 N.J. 156 (1958).

An example of when a judge should have recused themselves under R. 1:12-1 is, however, described in the recent published appellate opinion in Chandok v. Chandok.

In Chandok, the defendant made a motion the day before a divorce trial was due to start for the judge to recuse himself based on the prior adverse relationship between the judge and defendant’s attorney.  This included allegations made in 1997 of deceit, assault and unethical behavior while the two were law partners.  The judge decided not to recuse himself and proceeded with the trial.  On appeal, the appellate division disagreed and reversed the trial judgment, remanding the case back for a new trial before a different judge.

It was not necessary for the defendant in Chandok to show that the judge had shown actual bias to her during the trial, only to establish an appearance of impropriety or an objectively reasonable belief that the proceedings could have been unfair.   The appellate opinion held that the prior “acrimonious relationship” between defendant’s attorney and the judge “gave rise to more than a reasonable belief by an objectively reasonable litigant that the judge could not be fair and impartial.”

In conclusion, an objectively reasonable belief that a judge cannot be fair or impartial is required before you can get a different judge.