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 York, a judge may be disqualified from presiding over a case if there are provable facts that suggest a conflict of interest, which could compromise the judge's impartiality. Under New York law, a judge is typically required to recuse themselves in situations where they have previously served as an attorney in the matter at hand, or if an attorney with whom they previously practiced law served in relation to the matter during their association. Additionally, a judge must disqualify themselves if they have a personal or fiduciary interest in the outcome of the case, or if there is a close familial relationship (by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree) with any of the parties involved. These rules are designed to uphold the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that judges do not preside over cases where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.