By Manny Marotta

Federal judges and justices are required under law to recuse themselves in cases in which their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

The way that works in practice is that each judge (and some justices, we’re told) have a “recusal list” that they’ve loaded into their court’s conflict-check software. If, say, a Judge Smith owns Google stock and has put Google on his list, the software will automatically skip him if he is assigned a Google case, which will instead be randomly reassigned to a judge without that conflict.

But some Article III judges are taking a more direct and transparent approach by issuing standing orders of recusal — that is, prospective declarations that they may not or will not hear certain kinds of cases due to existing conflicts unlikely to change in the near future

There are three kinds of standing recusal orders: we call them “expiring,” “unexpiring” and “overlap.”

In expiring orders, a judge identifies a conflict, typically prior work, but notes that the conflict will expire after a certain number of years, typically two, post-confirmation or post-employment end date.

In unexpiring orders, a judge identifies a conflict — typically a family connection, like a spouse working at a local law firm — but does not include an end date, since it’s almost impossible for a judge to know, say, when her husband will stop working at said firm.

Overlap orders describe a judge’s prior work and request from the parties information on whether that judge, during her prior work, overlapped with any of the attorneys working on that specific case or a related case.

Expiring and unexpiring orders relating to prior work or a spouse’s current work are helpful in establishing parameters the conflict-check software may miss or not fully capture. In other words, if a judge neglects to redo their recusal list two years and one day post-confirmation, the order serves as backup explaining why they may have been assigned a certain case that they might not have been. Similarly, if a party switches law firms mid-suit (uncommon but possible), an unexpiring order and an overlap order will help judges and parties navigate potential conflicts arising from that switch.

All three types of orders help judges focus on their own ethical responsibilities and demonstrate a proactive approach to judicial ethics that strengthens public trust in the courts. They are a simple, effective transparency tool that we wish more judges would consider adopting.

Below are several recent examples illustrating how standing orders function in practice, and we’ll update this list as we learn of more. We link to a single order, but in most cases, these orders appeared in multiple dockets.

Expiring orders

M.D. Fla. Judge Kat Mizelle (serving since Nov. 20, 2020) issued an expiring standing recusal order for all cases involving Jones Day, where she worked for two years prior to her confirmation. As noted in the order, this conflict “expired” two years post-commission, i.e., on Nov. 20, 2022.

M.D. Fla. Magistrate Judge Natalie Adams (serving since Dec. 22, 2023) issued an expiring standing recusal order for all cases involving Foley & Lardner LLP, where she worked for two years prior to her confirmation. As noted in the order, this conflict “expired” two years after what appears to have been her last day at the firm, Oct. 31, 2025 (cf., with Judge Mizelle’s order that expires two years post-commission; not a major difference, but we prefer Mizelle’s approach).

Unexpiring orders

D. P.R. Judge Daniel Dominguez (served Sept. 29, 1994-Jan. 2, 2024) issued an unexpiring standing recusal order in 2023 stating that “the undersigned judge will not […] participate in any case in which any of the following entities appears as a party […]: UBS, UBSPR, UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico and/or any UBS affiliated worldwide; Merrill Lynch; Catholic Church; Counsel Samuel T. Cespedes; DAJO Foundation; Counsel Eliezer Aldarondo-Lopez; AUSA Seth Erbe; and Counsel Hector M. Laffitte.” It’s likely that these individuals and entities were on the justice’s recusal list, but a belt-and-suspenders approach like this doesn’t hurt.

D. P.R. Magistrate Judge Marshal Morgan (serving since May 23, 2018) issued an unexpiring standing recusal order for all cases involving a list of lawyers and firms with whom he was previously associated.

 M.D. Fla. Magistrate Judge Lindsay Griffin (serving since Oct. 3, 2024) issued an unexpiring standing recusal order for all cases involving law firm Lau, Lane, Pieper, Conley & McCreadie, P.A., at which “a member of [her] family” (i.e., her husband), is a partner.

Overlap orders

W.D. Wash. Judge Lauren King (serving since Dec. 7, 2021) issued an unexpiring overlap standing order asking parties to notify her chambers “if any lawyer at the below−listed law firms [Foster Garvey, Byrnes Keller Cromwell and K&L Gates] served as a lawyer concerning the above−captioned matter, or concerning any materially related matter, during the below−listed dates,” and then Judge King lists the dates in which she worked at those three firms.

W.D. Wash. Judge Tana Lin (serving since Nov. 23, 2021) issued an unexpiring overlap standing order asking parties to notify her chambers “if any lawyer at Keller Rohrback L.L.P. […] served as a lawyer concerning either the above−captioned matter or any material related matter at any time between August 2004 and November 2021.”

W.D. Wash. Judge Kymberly Evanson (serving since July 18, 2023) issued an unexpiring overlap standing order asking parties to notify her chambers “if any lawyer at the below−listed law firms [i.e., K&L Gates and Pacifica Law Group] served as a lawyer concerning the above−captioned matter, or concerning any materially related matter, during the below−listed dates,” and then Judge Evanson lists the dates in which she worked at those two firms.