“The Gown Of Judicial Protection”

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to recuse a judge premised on the judge’s granting a motion of the movant’s attorney to withdraw without holding a hearing

Plaintiff timely filed his recusal motion in this civil action along with an attached affidavit and exhibits setting forth the factual bases for the recusal motion. In a nutshell, Plaintiff sought recusal of Judge Neill on the grounds that he failed to honor Plaintiff’s request to be heard at the hearing on the attorneys’ motions in the post-conviction case and that by not holding a hearing, Judge Neill “shielded counsel with the gown of judicial protection.” In his motion for recusal, Plaintiff accused Judge Neill of “unfair and biased conduct” in protecting “counsel from the embarrassment of their own actions in a withdrawal hearing.” Based on these events, Plaintiff contended that “it is only reasonable to believe that the Judge’s unfair and biased conduct [by granting the motion to withdraw without a hearing] would also affect his judgment in the post-conviction and civil lawsuit matter[s].”

Argument undressed

It is also relevant to note that this civil action for “fraud” and “conspiracy” against Plaintiff’s former attorneys, which is undeterred by the withdrawal of the attorneys in the post-conviction case, provides Plaintiff the opportunity to air his grievances concerning the alleged acts or omissions of his attorneys. As a consequence, Judge Neill’s ruling has neither “shielded counsel with the gown of judicial protection,” nor protected “counsel from the embarrassment of their own actions.”

(Mike Frisch)