DIGEST
The digest printed below was prepared by House Legislative Services. It constitutes no part of the
legislative instrument. The keyword, one-liner, abstract, and digest do not constitute part of the law
or proof or indicia of legislative intent. [R.S. 1:13(B) and 24:177(E)]
HB 39 Engrossed 2021 Regular Session Magee
Abstract: Provides with respect to the recusal of judges.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 151) sets forth mandatory and permissive grounds for recusal.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 151) retains the mandatory grounds for recusal provided by present law
and adds an additional ground requiring a judge to be recused when there exists a substantial and
objective basis that would reasonably be expected to prevent the judge from conducting any aspect
of the cause in a fair and impartial manner. Proposed law also makes minor technical corrections.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 152) makes the permissive grounds for recusal provided by present law
disclosures that are required to be made by the judge to all attorneys and unrepresented parties.
Proposed law removes the requirement under present law that the judge's relative with a substantial
economic interest in the cause be living in the judge's household and provides that any party may file
a motion to recuse the judge if the disclosed information gives rise to a ground for recusal.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 152) provides for the recusal of a judge on his own motion or by the
supreme court and requires a judge who self-recuses to provide the ground for recusal in writing
within 15 days.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 153) changes present law to require a judge who self-recuses to
contemporaneously file into the record the order of recusal and the written reasons therefor and to
also provide a copy to the judicial administrator of the supreme court.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 154) requires a motion to recuse to be filed prior to trial or hearing, or if the
facts are discovered after the trial or hearing, immediately after the facts are discovered but prior to
judgment.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 154) requires a motion to recuse to be filed no later than 30 days after the
facts are discovered but in all cases prior to the scheduling of the matter for trial, unless the facts
occur or could not have been discovered prior to this deadline, in which case the motion to recuse
shall be filed immediately after the occurrence or discovery of the facts.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 154) also provides that if a motion to recuse is not timely filed or fails to
set forth a ground for recusal, the judge who is the subject of the motion may deny it without the
appointment of another judge or a hearing, provided that the judge provides written reasons for the
denial. Present law (C.C.P. Art. 153) provides for the power and authority of the recused judge and the judge
to whom the motion to recuse is assigned to act in the cause.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 155) retains present law.
Present law (C.C.P. Arts. 155-157) permits judges from the same court as the judge who is the
subject of the motion to hear both the motion to recuse and the cause if the judge is ultimately
recused, and in single judge districts, allows the judge who is the subject of the motion to select a
judge from an adjoining district or a lawyer in the judicial district who has the qualifications of a
district judge.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 158) permits a party to apply to the supreme court for the appointment of
another judge to try the cause.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 155) provides that in all cases, motions to recuse shall be heard by an ad
hoc judge appointed by the supreme court.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 156) further provides that when a district court judge of a court having
two or more judges is recused, the cause shall be randomly assigned to another division or section
of the court, but in single judge districts, the cause shall be assigned to an ad hoc judge appointed
by the supreme court.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 159) provides for the recusal of a supreme court justice and allows the court
to either have the cause argued before and disposed of by the other justices or appoint a judge having
the qualifications of a supreme court justice to act for the recused judge.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 157) retains present law but clarifies that the judge who is appointed to
act for the recused judge can either be a sitting or retired judge.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 160) provides for the recusal of a court of appeal judge and allows the
motion to recuse to be heard by the other judges on the panel or the remaining judges of the court
sitting en banc. Present law further provides that when a court of appeal judge is recused, the court
can either have the cause argued before and disposed of by the other judges on the panel or appoint
a judge having the qualifications of a court of appeal judge to act for the recused judge.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 158) changes present law to require the motion to recuse to be heard by
an ad hoc judge appointed by the supreme court and to provide that when a court of appeal judge is
recused, the court must randomly allot another of its judges to sit on the panel in place of the recused
judge.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 161) provides for the recusal of an ad hoc judge.
Proposed law (C.C.P. Art. 159) retains present law and makes minor technical corrections.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 4861) provides for the recusal of parish and city court judges and justices of the peace.
Proposed law retains present law and makes minor technical corrections.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 4862) provides with respect to motions to recuse parish and city court
judges and justices of the peace.
Proposed law changes present law to require the motion to recuse to be in writing and makes minor
technical corrections.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 4863) provides that in parish or city courts having more than one judge,
both the motion to recuse and the cause shall be tried by another judge of the same court. Present
law further provides that in all other cases, the motion to recuse shall be tried by the district court,
and if the judge is recused, the district court shall either try the cause or appoint another judge to try
the cause.
Proposed law provides that in parish or city courts having more than one judge, the motion to recuse
shall be tried by another judge of the same court, and in all other cases, the motion to recuse shall
be tried by an ad hoc judge appointed by the supreme court.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 4864) allows a parish or city court judge who recuses himself to appoint
another judge of the same court, if the court has more than one division, or to appoint a judge from
an adjoining parish or an attorney who has the qualifications of a parish or city court judge to try the
cause. Present law also allows a justice of the peace who recuses himself to appoint another justice
of the peace to try the cause.
Proposed law changes present law to provide that when a parish or city court judge recuses himself
or is recused, another judge of the same court shall be appointed to try the cause if that court has
more than one division, and in all other cases, the cause shall be tried by an ad hoc judge appointed
by the supreme court. Proposed law further provides that when a justice of the peace recuses
himself, the cause shall be tried by a justice of the peace appointed by the supreme court.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 4865) provides for the appointment of an ad hoc judge when a parish or city
court judge is temporarily unable to preside.
Proposed law retains present law.
Present law (C.C.P. Art. 4866) provides for the power and authority of an ad hoc judge.
Proposed law retains present law and makes minor technical corrections.
(Amends C.C.P. Arts. 151-159, the heading of Chapter 3 of Title I of Book VIII of the C.C.P., and
C.C.P. Arts. 4861(heading), 4862, 4863, 4864, 4865(heading), and 4866) Summary of Amendments Adopted by House
The Committee Amendments Proposed by House Committee on Judiciary to the original bill:
1. Change the term "responses" to "reasons".