*This outline is adapted from Chapter 27, Ethical Responsibilities,
Norton Bankruptcy Law & Practice 2d (Thomson-West 2005)
535 Model Code of Judicial Conduct 3D(2).
536 28 U.S.C. § 455; Bankruptcy Rule 5004. Disqualification from the entire case rather than a single dispute depends on whether the disqualifying circumstances are pervasive, or isolated to a single dispute
within the case. 1983 Advisory Committee Note to Bankruptcy Rule 5004.
537 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
538 (1) where the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge
of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
539 28 U.S.C. § 455(e). However, if the disqualification arises under § 455(b)(4) and the judge discovers the financial interest after spending substantial judicial on the matter, and that interest would not be substantially affected by the outcome, the judge may continue with the matter upon divestiture of the interest. § 455(f).
540 In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). The concept has been recognized repeatedly in the context of bankruptcy appeals, and the liberal concept of finality used by the appellate courts. Id.
541 In re Apex Oil Co., supra; In re Norton, 119 B.R. 332 (N.D. Ga. 1990)
542 Matter of Johnson, 921 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1991); In re Continental Airlines Corp., 901 F.2d 1259 (5th Cir. 1990); In re Olson, 20 B.R. 206 (D. Neb. 1982)(appearance of possible lack of impartiality in the mind of the average person is enough to warrant recusal); In re Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 84 B.R. 129 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1988); In re Olcese, 86 B.R. 916 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1988). That court cites the legislative history of § 455 for the point that "Litigants ought not [to] have to face a judge where there is a reasonable question of impartiality, but they are not entitled to judges of their own choice." H.R. 1453, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 6351, 6355. 86 B.R. at 920. In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F.Supp. 1237 (D. Conn. 1983)(right to an impartial judge does not permit judge-shopping); In re Krisle, 54 B.R. 330 (Bankr. D. S.D. 1985)(same).
543 In re Olcese, 86 B.R. at 920. Although 28 U.S.C. § 144 does not apply to disqualification of bankruptcy judges (see numerous cases cited in In re Norton, 119 B.R. at 334), that statute's procedure for filing an affidavit stating the facts and reasons for the party's belief in grounds for disqualification is a sound one for raising disqualification concerns. In re Olson, 20 B.R. 206 (D. Neb. 1982)(finding § 144 mechanism appropriate in bankruptcy context); see In re Chandler's Cove Inn, Ltd., 74 B.R. 772 (Bankr.
E.D.N.Y. 1987)(conclusory statements and unsupported beliefs of no effect). 544 In re Olson, 20 B.R. 206 (D. Neb. 1982)(court duty bound to take affidavit allegations as true for