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 Virginia, 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. The Code of Virginia and relevant case law outline the circumstances under which a judge must recuse themselves. These include situations where the judge has previously served as a lawyer in the matter at hand, or if a lawyer with whom the judge had an association served in relation to the matter; if the judge has a personal or fiduciary interest in the outcome of the case; or if the judge is related to any of the parties within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity. The process for recusal typically involves a motion from one of the parties, and the judge may decide to step down voluntarily or may be required to do so by law or by a higher court's order if the conflict of interest is substantiated.