The affidavit shall clearly state the facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, being definite and specific as to time, place, persons and circumstances of extra-judicial conduct or statements, which demonstrate either bias in favor of any adverse party, or prejudice toward the moving party in particular, or a systematic pattern of prejudicial conduct toward persons similarly situated to the moving party, which would influence the judge and impede or prevent impartiality in that action. Allegations consisting of bare conclusions and opinions shall not be legally sufficient to support the motion or warrant further proceedings.
Rule 25.2.Affidavit
Rule 25. RECUSAL · Last amended 1991 · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceRule 25.2 requires the affidavit backing a recusal motion to state specific, concrete facts — the time, place, persons, and circumstances of conduct showing bias toward a party or a pattern of prejudice toward people like the moving party — and rejects affidavits that offer only bare conclusions or opinions.
Full Text of Rule 25.2
Plain-English Summary
A recusal motion lives or dies on its affidavit, and Rule 25.2 sets a demanding bar for what that affidavit must contain. It is not enough to say a judge seems biased; the affidavit has to describe extra-judicial conduct or statements with real specificity — who said or did what, when, where, and under what circumstances — that would show favoritism toward the other side, prejudice against the moving party in particular, or a pattern of prejudicial treatment toward people in the moving party’s position.
The rule draws a clear line against affidavits built on suspicion or generalization. Allegations that amount to nothing more than the affiant’s bare conclusions and opinions are not legally sufficient to support the motion, meaning they will not even get the case to a hearing on the merits before another judge.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kind of facts does an affidavit supporting a recusal motion need to include?
Facts that are definite and specific as to time, place, persons, and circumstances of extra-judicial conduct or statements showing bias or prejudice affecting the judge’s impartiality.
Is it enough for the affidavit to state the affiant’s opinion that the judge is biased?
No. Allegations consisting of bare conclusions and opinions are not legally sufficient to support the motion or warrant further proceedings.
Can an affidavit describe a pattern of conduct toward people similarly situated to the moving party rather than conduct toward the moving party directly?
Yes, the rule recognizes a systematic pattern of prejudicial conduct toward persons similarly situated to the moving party as a valid basis for the affidavit.
Must the alleged bias relate to conduct that happened inside the courtroom?
No, the rule focuses on extra-judicial conduct or statements — meaning conduct or statements outside the proceeding itself — that demonstrate bias or prejudice.
What is the consequence of filing an affidavit that is too vague or conclusory?
It will not be legally sufficient to support the recusal motion or warrant further proceedings on it.
Amendment History
Amended effective January 31, 1991.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Uniform Superior Court Rules, published by the
Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: what must recusal affidavit say GeorgiaUSCR Rule 25.2Georgia judge bias affidavit requirementsbare conclusions recusal affidavit Georgiaproving judicial bias Georgia superior court