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 Arizona, a judge may be disqualified from presiding over a case if there are provable facts that suggest a conflict of interest. This could occur if the judge has previously served as an attorney in the matter, if they have a personal or fiduciary interest in the subject matter, or if they are related to one of the parties within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity. The process for a judge's disqualification is typically more stringent than recusal, which is based on the appearance of impartiality rather than an actual conflict of interest. While disqualification is not common, it is an important mechanism to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Arizona follows similar standards to those outlined above, and parties can file a motion for disqualification if they believe a judge has a conflict that would prevent them from being impartial.