Losing a string of rulings does not show that a Georgia judge is biased against you, and a recusal motion built on them will almost always fail.
The Rule
Bass v. Medy, 358 Ga. App. 827 (2021), states it flatly: “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” A settled companion rule runs with it: “[m]ere dissatisfaction with the court’s rulings is not a legally sufficient ground for recusal.”
The Bias Has to Come From Somewhere Else
The reason is a rule about the source of the bias. As Bass puts it, “[a]lleged bias requiring recusal must stem from an extra-judicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.”
An opinion the judge formed by sitting through your case is not disqualifying, however wrong you think it is.
What That Looks Like in Practice
In Bass, a mother listed a series of grievances against the trial judge: he made her lawyer appear after a conflicting hearing, held a temporary hearing without notice, interrupted her lawyer, closed discovery over her objection, waived mediation, and awarded the father relief he never asked for.
The Court of Appeals reversed the custody order on notice grounds but affirmed the denial of recusal. The mother pointed to no evidence of bias “other than the fact that [the court] gave the Father relief he never sought,” and did “not even suggest that the trial court’s purported bias stemmed from an extra-judicial source.”
Scheduling decisions fare no better. In Echols v. Echols, 281 Ga. 546 (2007), the Georgia Supreme Court held that an order specially setting a divorce for trial was “an insufficient basis for a recusal motion, as it is not an extra-judicial act that evidences bias.”
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!