By the way, it is absolutely necessary to construe in the light of the entire statute in order to get a sense of how strict the standard of disclosure and self- recusal is. The statutory language requires interpretation, and allows discretion. Generally, conflict of interest is construed narrowly, as involving financial interests. Even in the statute, the emphasis is on one's own household, and "due diligence" is under a loose standard: the justice must make a reasonable effort to acquaint himself with the affairs of his spouse and minor child. In the case of relatives with whom one does not share a domicile, recusal is necessary if one knows of a substantial interest that could be affected by the ruling. One does not have to make an effort to acquaint oneself, nor does one have to conjecture. Although the term "could" is used, presumably it is used in a strong sense: as a result of the ruling, there is reasonable expectation of a substantial effect. That is why I used "direct" as a further qualification. If it is not expected as a direct result of the ruling, the relationship between the ruling and the effect is merely speculative.
Only the fortunes of unestablished law firms are substantially affected by one case. Established law firms may be affected by winning a big case, but the result is speculative, and the benefit accruing to a particular person within the firm is even more speculative....... |
