On Wednesday, April 8, 2026, Bloomberg Law News reported that the American Bar Association (ABA) issued a new ethics opinion stating that lawyers are obligated to disclose information that they know is “reasonably likely” to cause a judge to be disqualified from a case.

This obligation arises from the lawyer’s role as an officer of the court, requiring them to disclose information that could lead to a judge’s recusal, especially if the judge is unaware of the circumstances. The ABA emphasizes that lawyers should not remain silent or allow a judge to unknowingly refuse to acknowledge circumstances requiring recusal.

The ABA notes that there have been “numerous reported instances in which judges failed to recuse when the circumstances warranted it.” While judges are expected to raise recusal questions themselves, lawyers must act if a judge fails to do so and if it can be established that the judge “must consider recusal because of the possibility that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

This responsibility stems from ABA’s Model Rule 8.4(d), which defines it as “professional misconduct” for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The ABA has stated that lawyers “must be forthcoming with procedural information that the tribunal needs to ensure that the proceedings are fair.”

However, the obligation to disclose is not absolute. The ABA acknowledges the duty of confidentiality, as detailed in Model Rule 1.6, which limits the lawyer’s obligation to disclose. If the information is related to a client representation, disclosure is subject to the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality. A lawyer may not disclose information relating to the representation without the client’s informed consent unless there is an applicable exception to the confidentiality obligation.

The ABA suggests that clients should be encouraged to give informed consent to their lawyer’s reporting of judicial misconduct, as per Model Rule 8.3(c). The duty to disclose a judge’s possible recusal obligation is subject to the same limitations. Without informed consent or an applicable exception, the duty to disclose information likely to require recusal is subject to Rule 1.6(a) when that information relates to the representation of a client.

The ABA advises that lawyers should disclose information “reasonably likely to require recusal” to authorities capable of addressing the issue, including directly to the judge, with notice to opposing counsel. In other cases, disclosure to the chief judge or other designated administrative authority may also be warranted.

The ABA provided examples of situations where lawyers might possess “actual knowledge of facts” that may “reasonably require” a judge to consider recusing themselves. One example is when a prosecutor is assigned to represent the state in post-conviction proceedings, and the assigned judge previously served as a supervisor in the prosecutor’s office.

Another example is when a lawyer representing a party in a civil case learns from the client that the client was a major financial contributor to the judge’s recent election campaign, but there’s no public record of the contribution.

 

 

Source: Bloomberg Law