Lorenz v. New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court considered a motion to recuse its current and retired justices in a challenge by court stenographers to Administrative Order 2004-02 and alleged promises of continued employment. The court held that participation in issuing the challenged administrative order and the naming of the Supreme Court as a defendant did not independently require disqualification. It nevertheless conditionally granted recusal for certain justices because the appeal involved evaluating statements and conduct of current judicial colleagues who might become witnesses, while recognizing that the Rule of Necessity could require participation if substitutes were unavailable.

Holdings

1. A judge is not disqualified merely because the judge participated in promulgating an administrative order whose validity is later challenged.
2. A judge is not disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue the judge or names the court as a defendant, absent allegations of personal bias or interest.
3. Recusal is required when an objective, fully informed person might reasonably question the judge's impartiality.
4. If no substitute justice is available, the Rule of Necessity may require otherwise disqualified members of the court of last resort to participate so that the litigants receive a final adjudication.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a judge must recuse merely because the judge participated in issuing the administrative order challenged by the litigant.
2. Whether a judge must recuse merely because the litigant names the court as a party.
3. Whether the circumstances of the appeal created a reasonable question about the participating justices' impartiality.
4. Whether the Rule of Necessity could require the justices to participate if no substitute judge were available.

Disposition

other