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 Nevada, a judge may be disqualified from presiding over a case if there are provable facts that suggest a conflict of interest that could affect the judge's impartiality. According to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), a judge is typically disqualified from a proceeding if: (1) the judge has previously served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or if a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served in relation to the matter during their association; (2) the judge has a personal or fiduciary interest in the subject matter of the controversy; or (3) a party to the proceeding is related to the judge by blood or marriage within the third degree. The process for a judge's recusal in Nevada involves a motion from a party to the case or the judge's own acknowledgement of a potential conflict of interest. The standards for disqualification aim to uphold the integrity of the judiciary by ensuring that judges do not preside over cases in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.