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 New Mexico, 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 a lawyer 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 recusal is typically initiated by a motion from one of the parties in the case, and the judge may also self-disqualify if they recognize a potential conflict of interest. The New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct provides guidance on the circumstances under which a judge should recuse themselves to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The standards for disqualification can vary, but the overarching principle is to ensure fairness and the perception of fairness in the legal process.