§ 170.1.Grounds for disqualification

Title 2. Judicial Officers · Chapter 3. Disqualifications of Judges · Last amended 2011 · Last verified July 28, 2026

In one sentenceSection 170.1 lists the specific grounds that disqualify a California judge — personal knowledge of the facts, prior service as a lawyer in the matter, a financial interest, family or professional ties to a party or lawyer, bias, physical impairment, dispute-resolution-neutral conflicts, and certain campaign contributions.

Full Text of § 170.1

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c)

(a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true:

(1)

(A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.

(B) A judge shall be deemed to have personal knowledge within the meaning of this paragraph if the judge, or the spouse of the judge, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(2)

(A) The judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, or in any other proceeding involving the same issues he or she served as a lawyer for a party in the present proceeding or gave advice to a party in the present proceeding upon a matter involved in the action or proceeding.

(B) A judge shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if within the past two years:

(i) A party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party, was a client of the judge when the judge was in the private practice of law or a client of a lawyer with whom the judge was associated in the private practice of law.

(ii) A lawyer in the proceeding was associated in the private practice of law with the judge.

(C) A judge who served as a lawyer for, or officer of, a public agency that is a party to the proceeding shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if he or she personally advised or in any way represented the public agency concerning the factual or legal issues in the proceeding.

(3)

(A) The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding.

(B) A judge shall be deemed to have a financial interest within the meaning of this paragraph if:

(i) A spouse or minor child living in the household has a financial interest.

(ii) The judge or the spouse of the judge is a fiduciary who has a financial interest.

(C) A judge has a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform himself or herself about his or her personal and fiduciary interests and those of his or her spouse and the personal financial interests of children living in the household.

(4) The judge, or the spouse of the judge, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person is a party to the proceeding or an officer, director, or trustee of a party.

(5) A lawyer or a spouse of a lawyer in the proceeding is the spouse, former spouse, child, sibling, or parent of the judge or the judge’s spouse or if such a person is associated in the private practice of law with a lawyer in the proceeding.

(6)

(A) For any reason:

(i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice.

(ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial.

(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification.

(7) By reason of permanent or temporary physical impairment, the judge is unable to properly perceive the evidence or is unable to properly conduct the proceeding.

(8)

(A) The judge has a current arrangement concerning prospective employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution neutral or is participating in, or, within the last two years has participated in, discussions regarding prospective employment or service as a dispute resolution neutral, or has been engaged in that employment or service, and any of the following applies:

(i) The arrangement is, or the prior employment or discussion was, with a party to the proceeding.

(ii) The matter before the judge includes issues relating to the enforcement of either an agreement to submit a dispute to an alternative dispute resolution process or an award or other final decision by a dispute resolution neutral.

(iii) The judge directs the parties to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process in which the dispute resolution neutral will be an individual or entity with whom the judge has the arrangement, has previously been employed or served, or is discussing or has discussed the employment or service.

(iv) The judge will select a dispute resolution neutral or entity to conduct an alternative dispute resolution process in the matter before the judge, and among those available for selection is an individual or entity with whom the judge has the arrangement, with whom the judge has previously been employed or served, or with whom the judge is discussing or has discussed the employment or service.

(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, all of the following apply:

(i) “Participating in discussions” or “has participated in discussion” means that the judge solicited or otherwise indicated an interest in accepting or negotiating possible employment or service as an alternative dispute resolution neutral, or responded to an unsolicited statement regarding, or an offer of, that employment or service by expressing an interest in that employment or service, making an inquiry regarding the employment or service, or encouraging the person making the statement or offer to provide additional information about that possible employment or service. If a judge’s response to an unsolicited statement regarding, a question about, or offer of, prospective employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution neutral is limited to responding negatively, declining the offer, or declining to discuss that employment or service, that response does not constitute participating in discussions.

(ii) “Party” includes the parent, subsidiary, or other legal affiliate of any entity that is a party and is involved in the transaction, contract, or facts that gave rise to the issues subject to the proceeding.

(iii) “Dispute resolution neutral” means an arbitrator, mediator, temporary judge appointed under Section 21 of Article VI of the California Constitution, referee appointed under Section 638 or 639, special master, neutral evaluator, settlement officer, or settlement facilitator.

(9)

(A) The judge has received a contribution in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1500) from a party or lawyer in the proceeding, and either of the following applies:

(i) The contribution was received in support of the judge’s last election, if the last election was within the last six years.

(ii) The contribution was received in anticipation of an upcoming election.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the judge shall be disqualified based on a contribution of a lesser amount if subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) applies.

(C) The judge shall disclose any contribution from a party or lawyer in a matter that is before the court that is required to be reported under subdivision (f) of Section 84211 of the Government Code, even if the amount would not require disqualification under this paragraph. The manner of disclosure shall be the same as that provided in Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

(D) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 170.3, the disqualification required under this paragraph may be waived by the party that did not make the contribution unless there are other circumstances that would prohibit a waiver pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 170.3.

(b) A judge before whom a proceeding was tried or heard shall be disqualified from participating in any appellate review of that proceeding.

(c) At the request of a party or on its own motion an appellate court shall consider whether in the interests of justice it should direct that further proceedings be heard before a trial judge other than the judge whose judgment or order was reviewed by the appellate court.

Plain-English Summary

§ 170.1 is the working list behind California’s judicial disqualification law. Subdivision (a) sets out nine numbered grounds, and each one answers a different version of the same question: does this judge have a stake, a history, or a connection to this case that a reasonable person would worry about?

Some grounds turn on the judge’s own knowledge or interest — personal knowledge of disputed facts, a financial interest in the outcome, or prior work as a lawyer in the same matter, extended by a two-year look-back for former clients and law-firm colleagues. Others turn on relationships — a spouse or close relative who is a party, or a lawyer in the case closely related to the judge. Still others reach bias itself, a physical impairment that keeps a judge from doing the job, conflicts tied to work as an arbitrator or mediator, and campaign contributions above $1,500 from a party or lawyer within the last six years.

Subdivision (a)(6) also includes a catch-all: a judge who believes recusal would serve the interests of justice, or who has substantial doubt about their own impartiality, or whose impartiality a reasonable observer would doubt, must step aside even without a more specific ground.

Subdivisions (b) and (c) round the section out. A judge who tried or heard a case cannot sit on its appeal, and an appellate court can send a case back to a different trial judge when justice calls for it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as a disqualifying financial interest under § 170.1?

§ 170.1(a)(3), read with § 170.5’s definitions, generally means more than a 1% ownership interest in a party or an interest worth more than $1,500, though narrow exceptions cover things like mutual fund holdings the judge does not manage.

Does a judge have to step aside just for having once expressed an opinion on a legal issue?

Not by itself — § 170.2 says expressing a view on a legal or factual issue is not automatically disqualifying, though § 170.1(a)(6)’s bias and “interests of justice” grounds can still apply depending on the circumstances.

How far back does the “prior service as a lawyer” ground reach?

§ 170.1(a)(2)(B) deems a judge to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if, within the past two years, a party or an officer of a party was a client of the judge or of a lawyer the judge practiced with.

How large a campaign contribution triggers disqualification?

§ 170.1(a)(9) sets the threshold at more than $1,500 from a party or lawyer, received in support of the judge’s last election within the last six years or in anticipation of an upcoming one.

Can a judge who tried a case also sit on its appeal?

No. § 170.1(b) disqualifies a judge from participating in appellate review of a proceeding the judge tried or heard below.

Amendment History

Added Stats 1984 ch 1555 § 5. Amended Stats 2002 ch 1094 § 1 (AB 2504); Stats 2005 ch 332 § 1 (AB 1322), effective September 22, 2005; Stats 2010 ch 686 § 1 (AB 2487), effective January 1, 2011.

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature. Last verified July 28, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: 170.1 grounds for judicial disqualificationwhen must a california judge recusejudge has financial interest in case californiajudge related to attorney disqualificationcampaign contribution judge disqualification california