In a recent conversation about other issues, an attorney posed an intriguing question: "Why does a judge recuse her/himself," and when there is no stated reason in the order is it permissible to ask why?" Of course, the easy answer is the same one that mom loved (and that we did not so much): "because I said so." To some extent, that answer is an embodiment of the process.
There are responsibilities imposed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. One in Canon 3 notes that the judge is obligated to "hear and decide matters." Canon 3, B. (1). That is this job and responsibility. When the judge is removing her/himself from that responsibility, certainly there should be some reason.
A disqualification (technically) is when someone asks the judge to remove her/himself. In that context, there will be a motion. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration, Rule 2.330: ("any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the
trial judge assigned"). The Motion will "specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant
relies as the grounds for disqualification." It is worth reminding that the Rules of Judicial Administration apply to courts, not to Judges of Compensation Claims. This particular rule applies because it was specifically incorporated, see Rule 60Q6.126.
In disqualification, therefore, the reason is perhaps known, or at least perhaps discernible from the motion. It is possible that a party might allege multiple reasons, and perhaps an order granting disqualification would not identify or discuss each specifically. But, the reason would likely lie within the constellation of reasons in the motion.
When a judge voluntarily removes her/himself from a case, a "recusal," it is much less likely that the litigants will discern the reason. One might consult the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct for possible reasons. In Canon 3, E. Disqualification (below, at end of post) the Code defines various instances in which a judge "shall disqualify himself or herself." There are various situations noted: where "the judge has a personal bias or prejudice," the judge knows that he or she (or a family member) . . . has an economic interest in the subject matter," or the matter involves "a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law" in certain circumstances. These are merely examples.
There are various other prohibitions, some more specific than others, throughout the Code of Judicial Conduct. In the end, the judge's decision to recuse her/himself is likely to be based upon one of those specificities, or perhaps the broad and overarching caution in Canon 2:
"A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities," and
"shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
The "appearance of impropriety standard concerns many adjudicators. There, the focus shifts from what "is" to what "might appear" inappropriate. From that foundation, a judge might recuse in an abundance of caution, if s/he perceives the potential for such an appearance. Of course, such decisions must be weighed and considered carefully, more so because the definition of "appearance" lends an element of subjectivity and perhaps therefore doubt.
In the end, the "because I said so" may well be the best, most informative answer that the parties receive. It appears to be a subject that may recur. That said, it is unlikely a subject that is appropriately dwelt upon. If one judge removes her/himself, the OJCC will assign another judge. There is not any reason to believe that such decisions are a statement of any kind about the parties or counsel of a case. It merely means there will be a different judge. In that regard, the second question "Can I ask" might best be answered with a gentle "no." There is neither reason nor purpose in such a request. If the judge wished to provide a reason, the order would state the reason. I see no benefit or purpose in such an inquiry.
Canon 3, B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (1) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required.
Canon 3, E. Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer or was the lower court judge in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it;
(c) the judge knows that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent, or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any other more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(d) the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(iv) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;
(e) the judge's spouse or a person within the third degree of relationship to the judge participated as a lower court judge in a decision to be reviewed by the judge.
(f) the judge, while a judge or a candidate for judicial office, has made a public statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to:
(i) parties or classes of parties in the proceeding;
(ii) an issue in the proceeding; or
(iii) the controversy in the proceeding.