On Thursday, May 21, 2026, Bloomberg Law reported that concerns about a judicial recusal crisis in Delaware’s Chancery Court have been largely overstated. The article highlights recent recusal bids, including one initiated by Elon Musk, which sparked discussions about potential judge shopping and the implications of a new ethics opinion from the American Bar Association.

The recusal requests in question involved Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David, whose past in private practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP included work on M&A transactions similar to those in the cases. One bid sought David’s disqualification from cases involving Apollo Global Management Inc. and KKR & Co., citing her prior work on related private equity restructurings. The judge addressed these concerns directly, reminding legal counsel of their obligation to use legal processes appropriately and expressing hope that such motions would remain outliers.

The article notes that the American Bar Association’s ethics opinion, released in April, discusses the duty of lawyers to raise conflicts of interest that are “reasonably likely” to result in recusal. The broad language of this opinion, combined with the interconnected nature of Delaware’s corporate legal community, led to speculation that it might encourage a rise in similar recusal requests. However, a Bloomberg Law docket analysis suggests that these specific disputes might be isolated incidents rather than the beginning of a trend.

The analysis revealed that while David’s tenure at Skadden involved M&A work, the number of cases directly linked to her previous firm and potentially requiring recusal is limited. Most of the 16 matters identified in her filings that mention “Skadden” were tangential references, with only two other lawsuits bearing resemblance to the Apollo and KKR transactions. It remains unclear if Skadden was involved in those specific deals during David’s time there, and recusal has not been an issue in those cases.

The judge herself expressed skepticism regarding the recusal bids, reviewing her docket of nearly 200 cases and finding no similar issues. She gave shareholder attorneys a deadline to disclose any other potential Skadden-related conflicts. This response aligns with the traditional approach to recusal, which emphasizes a judge’s “duty to sit” unless a clear conflict exists.

Legal experts, such as Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh, noted that recusal standards aim to balance impartiality with the need for a sufficient number of judges. Geyh also pointed out that judges are generally not conflicted out of cases involving their former firms unless they worked on the specific matter in question. He suggested that David is likely the only one of the court’s seven judges who could plausibly be considered for recusal based on her law firm past, and only in limited circumstances.

The article also touches upon the Elon Musk case, where bias allegations led to his final Delaware cases being reassigned. Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, who had voided Musk’s pay plan, declined to recuse herself from his remaining Delaware cases, rejecting his bias claims and citing excessive media attention as a problem.

The piece suggests that capitulating to such campaigns could incentivize future litigants to engineer similar controversies. Dmitry Bam, a University of Maine law professor, cautioned against rewarding “self-created media circuses.”

 

 

Source: Bloomberg Law