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 Utah, a judge may be disqualified from presiding over a case if there are provable facts that suggest a conflict of interest. The Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rule 2-110 outlines the circumstances under which a judge must be disqualified. These include situations where the judge has previously served as a lawyer in the matter, has a personal or fiduciary interest in the subject matter of the controversy, or is related to a party within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity. The process of recusal, which is when a judge voluntarily steps down from a case due to perceived partiality, is distinct from disqualification and is generally based on the appearance of a conflict rather than actual disqualifying facts. Disqualification is relatively rare, but it is a critical process to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.