RÉSUMÉ DIGEST
ACT 143 (HB 39) 2021 Regular Session Magee
Existing law (C.C.P. Art. 151) sets forth mandatory grounds for recusal of judges.
New law (C.C.P. Art. 151) 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. New law
also makes technical corrections.
Prior law (C.C.P. Art. 151) set forth permissive grounds for recusal of judges.
New law (C.C.P. Art. 152) changes the prior law permissive grounds for recusal to
disclosures that are required to be made by the judge to all attorneys and unrepresented
parties.
New law removes the requirement under prior 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.
New 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.
Prior law (C.C.P. Art. 153) provided for the recusal of a judge on his own motion or by the
supreme court and required a judge who self-recused to provide the ground for recusal in
writing within 15 days.
New law (C.C.P. Art. 153) requires 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.
Prior law (C.C.P. Art. 154) required a motion to recuse to be filed prior to trial or hearing,
or if the facts were discovered after the trial or hearing, immediately after the facts were
discovered but prior to judgment.
New 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.
New 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.
Existing 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.
New law (C.C.P. Art. 155) redesignates existing law.
Prior law (C.C.P. Arts. 155-157) permitted judges from the same court as the judge who was
the subject of the motion to hear both the motion to recuse and the cause if the judge was
ultimately recused, and in single judge districts, allowed the judge who was the subject of
the motion to select a judge from an adjoining district or a lawyer in the judicial district who
had the qualifications of a district judge.
Prior law (C.C.P. Art. 158) permitted a party to apply to the supreme court for the
appointment of another judge to try the cause.
New 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. New 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.
Existing 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.
New law (C.C.P. Art. 157) redesignates existing law and clarifies that the judge who is
appointed to act for the recused judge can either be a sitting or retired judge.
Prior law (C.C.P. Art. 160) provided for the recusal of a court of appeal judge and allowed
the motion to recuse to be heard by the other judges on the panel or the remaining judges of
the court sitting en banc. Prior law further provided that when a court of appeal judge was
recused, the court could 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.
New law (C.C.P. Art. 158) requires 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.
Existing law (C.C.P. Art. 161) provides for the recusal of an ad hoc judge.
New law (C.C.P. Art. 159) redesignates existing law and makes technical corrections.
Existing law (C.C.P. Art. 4861) provides for the recusal of parish and city court judges and
justices of the peace.
New law makes technical corrections.
Prior law (C.C.P. Art. 4862) provided with respect to motions to recuse parish and city court
judges and justices of the peace, but did not specify how the motion was to be made.
New law requires the motion to recuse to be in writing and makes technical corrections.
Existing 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.
Prior law further provided that in all other cases, the motion to recuse was tried by the district
court, and if the judge was recused, the district court would have either tried the cause or
appointed another judge to try the cause.
New 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.
Prior law (C.C.P. Art. 4864) allowed a parish or city court judge who recused himself to
appoint another judge of the same court, if the court had more than one division, or to
appoint a judge from an adjoining parish or an attorney who had the qualifications of a parish
or city court judge to try the cause. Prior law also allowed a justice of the peace who recused
himself to appoint another justice of the peace to try the cause.
New law provides 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. New 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. Existing 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.
New law makes technical corrections.
Existing law (C.C.P. Art. 4866) provides for the power and authority of an ad hoc judge.
New law makes technical corrections.
Effective August 1, 2021.
(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)