1. Section F.  Judicial Disqualification and Recusal, continued;
 a. 28 U.S.C. §455 is almost identical to Code of Judicial Conduct §3(E)
 b.  What else can cause the kind of bias or prejudice that would activate Code §3(E) or 144/455?
   (1) Laird v. Tatum involves prior public stance by Justice Rehnquist; who distinguishes between public comments
    (a) in general terms about a point of law on the one hand, which are generally o.k. and
    (b) those about a specific case which involves that point of law on the other; which often are not;
    (c) We looked at case in light of §455(b)(3) and Code §3(E);
  i.  Public comment during a case–Code Canon 3(B)(9)–Justice Scalia and Pledge of Allegiance Case;
  ii. Both Laird and Pledge case raise Supreme Court justice issue;
  iii. Prior non-judicial involvement with parties and Canon 3(E)–cases like Justice Scalia;
2. Process of Disqualification
 a. United States v. Sykes;–Under 28 U.S.C. §144;
  i. Disqualification is mandatory if the party seeking disqualification submits a "timely" and "sufficient" affidavit;
  ii. "Timely"--at the earliest moment after the facts requiring disqualification are known;
  iii. "Sufficient"--must be facts pleaded with enough definiteness and particularity to reasonably show that bias exists;  court must accept truth of those facts–even if it “knows” that the facts are untrue;
 b. United States v. Cooley,
  i. protesters sought to disqualify under 28 U.S.C. §455 for bias;
  ii. Standard for disqualification, and therefore, for “sufficiency” in looking at the disqualification motion; would a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, harbor doubts as to the impartiality of the judge?
 c. Remittal of disqualification;
  i.  Under Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(F),
   (1)  All disqualifying grounds can be waived by consent of the parties EXCEPT personal bias or prejudice of the judge;
   (2)  Grounds must be placed on the record;
   (3)  Parties must consider outside the presence of the judge;
  ii.  Under 28 U.S.C. §455(e),
   (1) ONLY the general ground contained in §455(a), impartiality might reasonably be questioned–other grounds in §455 cannot be waived;
   (2)  Judge must explain basis
 d. Law Firm conflicts with judges; Rule 1.12
  i.   If a matter is pending while a clerk is working for the judge and the clerk works personally and substantially on the matter, the clerk is prevented from representing a client in that matter;
  ii.   Other lawyers in the former clerk’s firm are not prevented, however, if screened and if notice to the court (note no consent);
  iii. Judicial clerks can negotiate for post-clerk employment even with firms appearing in the court, but must notify the judge;
3.   Chapter 6:  Particular Lawyer Roles and Responsibilities
 a.   Part A--Advocate: The Lawyer in Civil Litigation–Frivolous Claims;
  i.   Rule 3.1 is a general statement forbidding lawyers from all claims that are frivolous–rare enforcement;
  ii. Federal Civil Rule 11 (and state counterparts):
   (1) Signature required–it contains certification; Don’t forget “Safe Harbor” provision–which judge can overrule;
   (2) Sanctions only used as deterrence–use for attorney fees only as necessary for deterrence;
   (3) Here court also enjoins lawyer–very unusual;
   (4) Standard should be an objective one–would a reasonable lawyer be willing to bring the claim?
   (5) Lawyer can rely on client in emergency–but must always investigate–could later have to withdraw;