A judge may be disqualified from hearing or presiding over a matter in which provable facts suggest the judge has a disqualifying conflict of interest. The related legal process of recusal of a judge is generally based on the perception of impartiality due to circumstances that suggest a conflict of interest—but not to the same degree as the facts that establish disqualification.

The standards for disqualification of a judge vary from state to state, and disqualification is rare. But a judge is generally disqualified in any proceeding in which:

(1) the judge has served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter;

(2) the judge knows that, individually or as a fiduciary, the judge has an interest in the subject matter in controversy; or

(3) either of the parties may be related to the judge by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree.

In Alabama, a judge may be disqualified from presiding over a case if there are provable facts indicating a conflict of interest that could affect the judge's impartiality. The Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics provide specific circumstances under which a judge must disqualify themselves. These include situations where the judge has previously served as a lawyer in the matter at hand, or if a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served concerning the matter during their association. Additionally, a judge must disqualify themselves if they have a personal or fiduciary interest in the subject matter of the controversy, or if any party to the proceedings is related to the judge within the third degree by blood or marriage. The process of a judge stepping aside from a case due to potential bias or conflict of interest is known as recusal. While disqualification is relatively rare, the standards are in place to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and ensure fair and impartial proceedings.