The Arizona Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision Tuesday establishing strict new requirements for judges who seek to re-enter cases after recusing themselves, reversing a lower court ruling in *Contreras v. Bourke*.
The case arose from a contentious family court matter between Roger Contreras and Nancy Bourke that began as a marriage dissolution action in December 2009. The superior court entered a decree of dissolution in April 2011 after trial, but the case generated extensive post-decree litigation that continued for years.
In February 2020, all Cochise County Superior Court judges, including Judge Timothy Dickerson, recused themselves from the matter. Judge Dickerson notably did not provide any reason on the record for his recusal at that time.
Despite the earlier recusal, Judge Dickerson later re-entered the case to rule on a motion to designate one of the parties as a vexatious litigant. This action formed the basis of the ethical violation that the Arizona Supreme Court addressed in its opinion.
Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Cruz emphasized the fundamental principle that Arizona judges must disqualify themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned" under Arizona Rule of Supreme Court 81, Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11(A).
The court held that once a judge recuses from a case, that judge remains disqualified from presiding further in the same case unless specific procedural requirements are met. The judge must first articulate clear reasons why recusal is no longer required and must allow all parties an opportunity to object to the judge's return.
"We hold that once a judge recuses in a case, that judge remains disqualified from presiding further in that same case unless the judge first articulates the reasons why recusal is no longer required and allows the parties an opportunity to object," the court wrote.
This ruling establishes important procedural safeguards designed to protect judicial integrity and maintain public confidence in the court system. The decision reinforces that recusal is not a temporary measure that judges can reverse at will, but rather a serious ethical determination that requires careful justification if circumstances change.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by smaller judicial districts where limited numbers of available judges can create administrative difficulties when multiple recusals occur. Cochise County's situation, where all superior court judges recused from the *Contreras* matter, represents the type of scenario that can pressure judicial officers to find creative solutions that may compromise ethical standards.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, had previously issued an opinion in the case that was reported at 258 Ariz. 223 (App. 2024), but the Supreme Court vacated that decision as part of its ruling.
Nancy Bourke represented herself in the proceedings, arguing the case *in propria persona* before the high court. Roger Contreras was represented by attorney Danette R. Pahl of Pahl & Associates in Tucson, who argued the case before the justices.
The Supreme Court's decision was authored by Justice Cruz and joined by Chief Justice Timmer, Vice Chief Justice Lopez, and Justices Bolick, Beene, Montgomery, and King. The unanimous nature of the decision underscores the court's view that judicial recusal standards must be strictly maintained.
The ruling reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case with instructions, meaning the matter will return to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. This disposition allows the parties to continue their litigation while ensuring proper judicial oversight.
The decision has implications beyond the immediate parties, establishing precedent that will guide judicial conduct throughout Arizona's court system. Trial judges must now follow clear procedures when considering whether to re-enter cases from which they previously recused, potentially affecting case management in complex or long-running litigation.
The *Contreras v. Bourke* decision reinforces Arizona's commitment to maintaining high ethical standards for its judiciary while providing practical guidance for situations where judicial resources are limited and recusals create administrative challenges.
Legal experts note that the ruling strikes an appropriate balance between preserving judicial integrity and recognizing the practical realities facing court systems, particularly in smaller jurisdictions where judge availability can become a significant constraint on case administration.