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 Louisiana, a judge may be disqualified from presiding over a case if there are provable facts that suggest a conflict of interest. The Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct provides guidelines for when a judge should be disqualified. According to these guidelines, a judge should disqualify themselves in any proceeding where they have previously served as a lawyer in the matter, or if an associate with whom they previously practiced law served as a lawyer in the matter. 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 is related to the judge within the third degree by blood or marriage. The process of recusal, which is less stringent than disqualification, is based on the appearance of impartiality and can be requested by a party in the case or initiated by the judge themselves. The standards for disqualification and recusal are designed to uphold the integrity of the judiciary by ensuring judges remain impartial and free from conflicts of interest.