Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020 (2026)
Disqualification of judicial officer for cause
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 22.20.020. Disqualification of judicial officer for cause.
(a) A judicial officer may not act in a matter in which
(1) the judicial officer is a party;
(2) the judicial officer is related to a party or a party's attorney by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree;
(3) the judicial officer is a material witness;
(4) the judicial officer or the spouse of the judicial officer, individually or as a fiduciary, or a child of the judicial officer has a direct financial interest in the matter;
(5) a party, except the state or a municipality of the state, has retained or been professionally counseled by the judicial officer as its attorney within two years preceding the assignment of the judicial officer to the matter;
(6) the judicial officer has represented a person as attorney for the person against a party, except the state or a municipality of the state, in a matter within two years preceding the assignment of the judicial officer to the matter;
(7) an attorney for a party has represented the judicial officer or a person against the judicial officer, either in the judicial officer's public or private capacity, in a matter within two years preceding the filing of the action;
(8) the law firm with which the judicial officer was associated in the practice of law within the two years preceding the filing of the action has been retained or has professionally counseled either party with respect to the matter;
(9) the judicial officer feels that, for any reason, a fair and impartial decision cannot be given.
(b) A judicial officer shall disclose, on the record, a reason for disqualification specified in (a) of this section at the commencement of a matter in which the judicial officer participates. The disqualifications specified in (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(8) of this section may be waived by the parties and are waived unless a party raises an objection.
(c) If a judicial officer is disqualified on the officer's own motion or consents to disqualification, the presiding judge of the district shall immediately transfer the action to another judge of that district to which the objections of the parties do not apply or are least applicable and if there is no such judge, the chief justice of the supreme court shall assign a judge for the hearing or trial of the action. If a judicial officer denies disqualification the question shall be heard and determined by another judge assigned for the purpose by the presiding judge of the next higher level of courts or, if none, by the other members of the supreme court. The hearing may be ex parte and without notice to the parties or judge.
(a) A judicial officer may not act in a matter in which
(1) the judicial officer is a party;
(2) the judicial officer is related to a party or a party's attorney by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree;
(3) the judicial officer is a material witness;
(4) the judicial officer or the spouse of the judicial officer, individually or as a fiduciary, or a child of the judicial officer has a direct financial interest in the matter;
(5) a party, except the state or a municipality of the state, has retained or been professionally counseled by the judicial officer as its attorney within two years preceding the assignment of the judicial officer to the matter;
(6) the judicial officer has represented a person as attorney for the person against a party, except the state or a municipality of the state, in a matter within two years preceding the assignment of the judicial officer to the matter;
(7) an attorney for a party has represented the judicial officer or a person against the judicial officer, either in the judicial officer's public or private capacity, in a matter within two years preceding the filing of the action;
(8) the law firm with which the judicial officer was associated in the practice of law within the two years preceding the filing of the action has been retained or has professionally counseled either party with respect to the matter;
(9) the judicial officer feels that, for any reason, a fair and impartial decision cannot be given.
(b) A judicial officer shall disclose, on the record, a reason for disqualification specified in (a) of this section at the commencement of a matter in which the judicial officer participates. The disqualifications specified in (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(8) of this section may be waived by the parties and are waived unless a party raises an objection.
(c) If a judicial officer is disqualified on the officer's own motion or consents to disqualification, the presiding judge of the district shall immediately transfer the action to another judge of that district to which the objections of the parties do not apply or are least applicable and if there is no such judge, the chief justice of the supreme court shall assign a judge for the hearing or trial of the action. If a judicial officer denies disqualification the question shall be heard and determined by another judge assigned for the purpose by the presiding judge of the next higher level of courts or, if none, by the other members of the supreme court. The hearing may be ex parte and without notice to the parties or judge.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017).
Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017). “For purposes of evaluating Timothy's claim of bias and the appearance of partiality, no separate analysis of the Code of Judicial Conduct seems necessary as we already have incorporated relevant prescriptions from the code into our analysis under AS 22.”
Phillips v. State, 271 P.3d 457 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “) But the supreme court also noted that the statute governing judicial disqualification, AS 22.20.020, contained no provision that allowed judges to recuse themselves based on the appearance of partiality alone.”
Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska Inc., 193 P.3d 751 (Alaska 2008). “2d 155, 156 (Alaska 1976)) (holding that AS 22.20.020 embodies right to impartial tribunal).”
Coffey v. State, 585 P.2d 514 (Alaska 1978). “A motion was also filed to disqualify Judge Hanson for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020. All three motions were denied.”
Mustafoski v. State, 867 P.2d 824 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “The portion of AS 22.20.020 interpreted in Keel , subsection (a)(5), addresses the problem of a judge who has previously acted as a lawyer on behalf of one of the parties.”
Amidon v. State, 604 P.2d 575 (Alaska 1979). “Boyko to the Alaska Bar Association for disciplinary proceedings *577 would affect Judge Carlson’s ability to decide fairly any case in which Mr.”
Long v. Long, 816 P.2d 145 (Alaska 1991). “Regina's argument that Judge Carlson violated AS 22.20.020 is similarly conjectural and unconvincing.”
Wasserman v. Bartholomew, 923 P.2d 806 (Alaska 1996). “The motion was essentially a motion to disqualify Judge Beistline for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020. Before his elevation to the bench, Judge Beistline worked in Fairbanks for the law firm of Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin.”
Burrell v. Burrell, 696 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1984). “Homer referred this court to his motion to disqualify Judge Moody for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020(a)(6) [16] and his request that Judge Moody not hear any further proceedings in this case.”
Greenway v. Heathcott, 294 P.3d 1056 (Alaska 2013). “(noting that AS 22.20.020 does not require recusal, but that the judge should give weight to preserving the appearance of impartiality in light of provisions in the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct).”
Wright v. Anding, 390 P.3d 1162 (Alaska 2017). “” 25 But neither AS 22.20.020 nor the Judicial Canons prevent a trial judge who presided over a party’s criminal case, or who was sued by the paify, from presiding over other cases involving that party.”
Brown v. State, 414 P.3d 660 (Alaska 2018). “In my view Brown has raised an important legal issue of first impression that deserves this court's consideration: Is it legal error when a *662 multi-judge panel effectively cloaks one decision maker's identity until its final decision is issued, leaving the litigant no…”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(2) — 1 case
Phillips v. State, 271 P.3d 457 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “) But the supreme court also noted that the statute governing judicial disqualification, AS 22.20.020, contained no provision that allowed judges to recuse themselves based on the appearance of partiality alone.”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(2)(9) — 3 cases
Hymes v. DeRamus, 222 P.3d 874 (Alaska 2010).
Patterson v. Infinity Ins. Co., 303 P.3d 493 (Alaska 2013).
Crawford v. State, 337 P.3d 4 (Alaska Ct. App. 2014).
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a) — 19 cases
Greenway v. Heathcott, 294 P.3d 1056 (Alaska 2013). “(noting that AS 22.20.020 does not require recusal, but that the judge should give weight to preserving the appearance of impartiality in light of provisions in the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct).”
Keel v. State, 552 P.2d 155 (Alaska 1976).
Wasserman v. Bartholomew, 38 P.3d 1162 (Alaska 2002).
Mustafoski v. State, 867 P.2d 824 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “The portion of AS 22.20.020 interpreted in Keel , subsection (a)(5), addresses the problem of a judge who has previously acted as a lawyer on behalf of one of the parties.”
Patterson v. Infinity Ins. Co., 303 P.3d 493 (Alaska 2013).
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a)(2) — 3 cases
In re C.L.T., 597 P.2d 518 (Alaska 1979).
In Re Clt, 597 P.2d 518 (Alaska 1979).
Douglas Greene v. Michelle Greene n/k/a Michelle Zarkovich (Alaska 2018).
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a)(3) — 7 cases
Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017). “For purposes of evaluating Timothy's claim of bias and the appearance of partiality, no separate analysis of the Code of Judicial Conduct seems necessary as we already have incorporated relevant prescriptions from the code into our analysis under AS 22.”
Vickers v. State, 175 P.3d 1280 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008).
Johnson v. Johnson, 394 P.3d 598 (Alaska 2017).
Noey v. Bledsoe, 978 P.2d 1264 (Alaska 1999).
Vaska v. State, 955 P.2d 943 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a)(4) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska Inc., 193 P.3d 751 (Alaska 2008). “2d 155, 156 (Alaska 1976)) (holding that AS 22.20.020 embodies right to impartial tribunal).”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a)(5) — 7 cases
Mustafoski v. State, 867 P.2d 824 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “The portion of AS 22.20.020 interpreted in Keel , subsection (a)(5), addresses the problem of a judge who has previously acted as a lawyer on behalf of one of the parties.”
Keel v. State, 552 P.2d 155 (Alaska 1976).
DeNardo v. Michalski, 811 P.2d 315 (Alaska 1991).
Swift v. Kniffen, 706 P.2d 296 (Alaska 1985).
Wasserman v. Bartholomew, 923 P.2d 806 (Alaska 1996). “The motion was essentially a motion to disqualify Judge Beistline for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020. Before his elevation to the bench, Judge Beistline worked in Fairbanks for the law firm of Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin.”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a)(6) — 6 cases
Burrell v. Burrell, 696 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1984). “Homer referred this court to his motion to disqualify Judge Moody for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020(a)(6) [16] and his request that Judge Moody not hear any further proceedings in this case.”
Coffey v. State, 585 P.2d 514 (Alaska 1978). “A motion was also filed to disqualify Judge Hanson for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020. All three motions were denied.”
Mustafoski v. State, 867 P.2d 824 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “The portion of AS 22.20.020 interpreted in Keel , subsection (a)(5), addresses the problem of a judge who has previously acted as a lawyer on behalf of one of the parties.”
Alaska Trams Corp. v. Alaska Elec. Light & Power, 743 P.2d 350 (Alaska 1987).
Amidon v. State, 604 P.2d 575 (Alaska 1979). “Boyko to the Alaska Bar Association for disciplinary proceedings *577 would affect Judge Carlson’s ability to decide fairly any case in which Mr.”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a)(8) — 2 cases
Michael Joseph Johnson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 475 P.3d 1128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020).
Mark A. McAlpine v. Denali Ctr. & Sentry Ins. (Alaska 2018).
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a)(9) — 29 cases
Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017). “For purposes of evaluating Timothy's claim of bias and the appearance of partiality, no separate analysis of the Code of Judicial Conduct seems necessary as we already have incorporated relevant prescriptions from the code into our analysis under AS 22.”
Long v. Long, 816 P.2d 145 (Alaska 1991). “Regina's argument that Judge Carlson violated AS 22.20.020 is similarly conjectural and unconvincing.”
Phillips v. State, 271 P.3d 457 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “) But the supreme court also noted that the statute governing judicial disqualification, AS 22.20.020, contained no provision that allowed judges to recuse themselves based on the appearance of partiality alone.”
Wasserman v. Bartholomew, 923 P.2d 806 (Alaska 1996). “The motion was essentially a motion to disqualify Judge Beistline for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020. Before his elevation to the bench, Judge Beistline worked in Fairbanks for the law firm of Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin.”
Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska Inc., 193 P.3d 751 (Alaska 2008). “2d 155, 156 (Alaska 1976)) (holding that AS 22.20.020 embodies right to impartial tribunal).”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(a)(d) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska Inc., 193 P.3d 751 (Alaska 2008). “2d 155, 156 (Alaska 1976)) (holding that AS 22.20.020 embodies right to impartial tribunal).”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(b) — 5 cases
Vaska v. State, 955 P.2d 943 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).
Vickers v. State, 175 P.3d 1280 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008).
Bradley v. State, 16 P.3d 187 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001).
Bret Bohn v. Providence Health Servs. - Washington, 484 P.3d 484 (Alaska 2021).
Michael Joseph Johnson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 475 P.3d 1128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020).
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(c) — 41 cases
Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska Inc., 193 P.3d 751 (Alaska 2008). “2d 155, 156 (Alaska 1976)) (holding that AS 22.20.020 embodies right to impartial tribunal).”
Coffey v. State, 585 P.2d 514 (Alaska 1978). “A motion was also filed to disqualify Judge Hanson for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020. All three motions were denied.”
Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017). “For purposes of evaluating Timothy's claim of bias and the appearance of partiality, no separate analysis of the Code of Judicial Conduct seems necessary as we already have incorporated relevant prescriptions from the code into our analysis under AS 22.”
Brown v. State, 414 P.3d 660 (Alaska 2018). “In my view Brown has raised an important legal issue of first impression that deserves this court's consideration: Is it legal error when a *662 multi-judge panel effectively cloaks one decision maker's identity until its final decision is issued, leaving the litigant no…”
Phillips v. State, 271 P.3d 457 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “) But the supreme court also noted that the statute governing judicial disqualification, AS 22.20.020, contained no provision that allowed judges to recuse themselves based on the appearance of partiality alone.”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.20.020(e) — 1 case
Wasserman v. Bartholomew, 923 P.2d 806 (Alaska 1996). “The motion was essentially a motion to disqualify Judge Beistline for cause pursuant to AS 22.20.020. Before his elevation to the bench, Judge Beistline worked in Fairbanks for the law firm of Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.