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 West 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. According to West Virginia Code § 51-2A-4, a judge is typically disqualified from a proceeding if: (1) the judge has previously served as a lawyer in the matter at hand or was associated with a law firm or attorney who worked on the matter; (2) the judge has a personal or fiduciary interest in the outcome of the case; or (3) a party to the case is related to the judge by blood or marriage within the third degree. The process for a judge's recusal is generally initiated by a motion from one of the parties involved in the case, and the judge may also recuse themselves voluntarily if they believe their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.