Misimpression

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to recuse an assistant district attorney and judge in an support enforcement matter

Mother claimed that the assistant district attorney was unethically “representing two opposing positions” by initially making arguments that aligned with her interests but now making arguments that aligned with Father’s interests. And she believed the child support magistrate and the trial judge were improperly condoning this conflict of interest and engaging in ex parte communications with the assistant district attorney. So Mother filed a motion to recuse the assistant district attorney, the trial judge, and the child support magistrate, and to transfer the case out of Robertson County. When a new child support magistrate was assigned to the case, Mother filed a second motion to recuse him too.

Denial affirmed

We find no evidence of these violations in the numerous documents filed by Mother in support of her petition for recusal. Instead, Mother’s request for the trial judge’s recusal appears premised on a misimpression of the assistant district attorney’s role. She believes the assistant district attorney violated RPC 1.3 by not filing an enforcement petition, RPC 1.8(b) by sending the letter with expense documents to Father, and RPC 1.7(a)(2) by taking positions that aligned with Father’s interests on certain issues. These claims are based on the idea that the assistant district attorney represents Mother’s interests. The assistant district attorney does not represent Mother. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2307(f) (explaining that the entitlement to request assistance from the State does “not create . . . a relationship of attorney and client or other fiduciary relationship between a support enforcement agency or the attorney for the agency and the individual being assisted by the agency”).

Mother also alleges that the trial judge appeared to have engaged in ex parte communications with the assistant district attorney that led her to prejudge the case and “stage” rehearsed hearings. See TENN. SUP. CT. R. 10, RJC 2.9(A). Although Mother’s filings are rife with speculation, the facts presented by Mother do not support this claim. Conjecture is insufficient to justify recusal.

(Mike Frisch)