SSHB39 4272 3656
HOUSE SUMMARY OF SENATE AMENDMENTS
HB 39 2021 Regular Session Magee
CIVIL/PROCEDURE: Provides relative to the recusal of judges
Synopsis of Senate Amendments
1.Makes technical changes.
Digest of Bill as Finally Passed by Senate
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.
Proposed law further provides that the judge is required to disclose if he is related within the
second degree to a member of the law firm of the attorney appointed to the case.
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.
Page 1 of 3 SSHB39 4272 3656
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.
Page 2 of 3 SSHB39 4272 3656
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)
Page 3 of 3