4 ms·

Seems sensible. It's not like there is any point to 'collecting' as many cases as you can as a judge, and it's better for everyone if focus remains on the case

Seems sensible. It's not like there is any point to 'collecting' as many cases as you can as a judge, and it's better for everyone if focus remains on the case instead of getting pulled into some 'appearance of conflict' (even if there is none).

DannyBee 4y ago
Kinda? I agree in principle. But not in this instance I think. The conflict here is very weak, and most judges would not likely recuse in this case or feel shut pressure to do so. The husband worked for a 1000+ attorney firm that once had a client, and had no involvement in anything. The judge has no knowledge or involvement. If every judge in a similar situation recused, you would likely have to move/transfer lots of cases around the country to try to find judges that could hear them. I actually suspect the judge just may not want to deal with this high profile of a case. It can be really a mess to deal with (even before you get to the personal toll of increased death threats, etc)
- oneplane 4y ago
  I suspect this might not have happened on a lower profile case. While in principle the idea here is that the court weighs the facts and the judge makes sure that it happens and ends up with a verdict, the reality is that with enough money it gets changed into some weird sports-gameshow hybrid where irrelevant bits of data are used to weasel out of responsibility. Perhaps one of the issues here is the (apparent?) amount of personal input a judge can have, so if a judge were to dislike the taste of tomatoes and they have to hear a case on ketchup, they might act differently than a judge that doesn't really care about tomato-taste either way. But since all of this (generally) revolves around humans, removing all wiggle room is problematic as well (since laws are not humans, but are rather static).
- credit_guy 4y ago
  We only know the husband worked in a large company that had SBF as a client back in 2021. But chances are he was close to that case. We don't know that. The judge says she doesn't know that either, and we can take her at her word. But she certainly asked him "Do you think there could be a problem?". The husband answers "Maybe", and he does not cross any ethical boundaries about client-attorney confidentiality. Then the judge simply follows the rule "when in doubt, recuse yourself".
  - mcrady 4y ago
    IANAL but it seems like it could be a basis for appeal. And what's the point of putting in months of work hearing a case if there's a chance that it will all get nullified.
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      I’m not sure I see how judges recusing themselves could be grounds for appeal. Not recusing oneself though…
      - 1123581321 4y ago
        That’s what they were saying.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > We only know the husband worked in a large company that had SBF as a client back in 2021 He didn't only "work" in the firm; he was a partner in it. Maybe he talked to the partner who managed the SBF work; maybe he didn't. But as a partner he'd have some justification for asking, "Hey, how's that crypto case going?" at least.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      There are almost 200 partners at the firm. It's not that big a thing.
      - ffggffggj 4y ago
        I think you’re right, but I assume the whole idea was to avoid having the formal version of this thread in an appeals court a year from now.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        > not that big a thing "Your Honor, the Prosecution suggests this is not that big a thing!" No. Don't want to go there.
- cm2187 4y ago
  It's not about the conflict being weak, it's mostly about standard setting. If it is the norm that judges recuse themselves even in case of fairly remote conflict of interest, it will make it very difficult for a judge to not recuse himself in the case of a more problematic conflict of interest.
  - DannyBee 4y ago
    In theory, maybe. I can buy it in places judges are elected or subject to popular anything. In practice, federal judges can't be removed except by impeachment, and such a thing is not an impeachable offense. It is otherwise a lifetime appointment. One with a lucrative partner job waiting if they choose to go that route early, regardless of social reputation. They are fairly insulated from being forced to do something based on the standards others want to set.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > In practice, federal judges can't be removed except by impeachment, and such a thing is not an impeachable offense Conflict of interest is one of the things typically listed as impeachable judicial misconduct; not that there is any concrete boundary to “impeachable offense” since the House is free to decide any conduct is or or is not impeachable.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I think it's a great move in this particular case just because it's so highly watched. A major motivation behind recusal is to maintain confidence in the judicial system. SBF has already been the subject of all sorts of claims of political corruption. Better that this one be squeaky clean, even if sophisticated observers might understand why this sort of connection is innocuous.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Yep. All upside, no downside. Better safe than sorry here.
- epgui 4y ago
  > The conflict here is very weak Yes, and the ethical bar for the judiciary is supposed to be super strict. It's not even enough to avoid conflicts of interest: one must also avoid the appearance of any potential conflicts of interest.
  - cormacrelf 4y ago
    Right on. Forget “what if every judge recused for this level of conflict!”, they already do that, and it doesn’t really put a dent in judge supply.
    - asveikau 4y ago
      I think there are prominent examples where they don't. We notice those because they seem unfair. Recusals that do happen probably don't usually make headlines.
    - DannyBee 4y ago
      Actually, they 100% do not recuse for this level of conflict. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise, or what data you have to support. Recusals are extremely rare, and it is common for judges to have SO's or children or .... in law firms that, at some point, represented someone before a judge, without the person having been involved. Which is the case here. They do not recuse. So no, they do not "already do that". If they did, it really would put a dent in the judge supply - there are not that many federal judges.
  - DannyBee 4y ago
    I'm quite aware of the judicial bar, and i don't think it even comes close to "appearance of a potential conflict". Which, as a phrase without interpretation, of course, covers literally everything (IE defendant is a vegan and I am not). So in the end, i simply disagree with you - this is not a close call, as the order is written, and as the bar has ever been interpreted, either by caselaw, or by ethics opinions.
    - epgui 4y ago
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  A judge has to be impeccable. There should be no discussion at all, if the conflict is minor or major. Other judges are avaliable. Reputation and integrity, once lost, cannot be recovered
  - DannyBee 4y ago
    This sort of ignores the point - it all depends how you define conflict, which is where any meat of this sort of thing is. There is no real conflict here. At all. By any definition you will find of a conflict, or any advisory opinions, or any caselaw. That a family member once worked for a firm that, at some point in the past, may have represented a corporation that someone worked for (they aren't even sure), where the family member: 1. did not work on it 2. has no knowledge of it 3. wasn't even aware of this until informed. is simply not a conflict. Someone is always going to argue you should recuse. While recusal is super-rare, recusal motions are not. Someone will always try to paint a conflict about something! So your theory on reputation doesn't work in practice - you are going to get smeared either way. That's the fun of being a judge.
    - epivosism 4y ago
      Genuinely curious - what is your explanation for why the recusal happened? Your arguments paint it as clearly unusual or invalid but not knowing you or the details of the case, what is your case for believing you rather than the facts of the case, that a professional judge made this decision? Could you lay out an alternative explanation for why this happened? i.e. you're making strong claims that this is obviously wrong, yet not explaining why it happened. Barring detailed knowledge, tie usually goes to reality rather than the HN commenter.
- RobLach 4y ago
  Even a reasonable excuse won't stop a headline that will muck up things.
- philippejara 4y ago
  It's a huge case being watched by the entire world, even if there is a minuscule chance of it causing an actual issue, or there is the possible bad optics, I fail to see why the judge wouldn't do it. Nobody is going to excuse themselves on these terms for regular cases where the entire world isn't watching, but why risk anything in this case? The law might be blind -or at least should-, but the audience isn't and that audience might very well include federal agencies and nutjobs.
- twblalock 4y ago
  The conflict may be weak, bur the case has a much higher profile than normal.

DannyBee 4y ago

Kinda? I agree in principle. But not in this instance I think. The conflict here is very weak, and most judges would not likely recuse in this case or feel shut pressure to do so. The husband worked for a 1000+ attorney firm that once had a client, and had no involvement in anything. The judge has no knowledge or involvement. If every judge in a similar situation recused, you would likely have to move/transfer lots of cases around the country to try to find judges that could hear them. I actually suspect the judge just may not want to deal with this high profile of a case. It can be really a mess to deal with (even before you get to the personal toll of increased death threats, etc)

oneplane 4y ago
I suspect this might not have happened on a lower profile case. While in principle the idea here is that the court weighs the facts and the judge makes sure that it happens and ends up with a verdict, the reality is that with enough money it gets changed into some weird sports-gameshow hybrid where irrelevant bits of data are used to weasel out of responsibility. Perhaps one of the issues here is the (apparent?) amount of personal input a judge can have, so if a judge were to dislike the taste of tomatoes and they have to hear a case on ketchup, they might act differently than a judge that doesn't really care about tomato-taste either way. But since all of this (generally) revolves around humans, removing all wiggle room is problematic as well (since laws are not humans, but are rather static).
credit_guy 4y ago
We only know the husband worked in a large company that had SBF as a client back in 2021. But chances are he was close to that case. We don't know that. The judge says she doesn't know that either, and we can take her at her word. But she certainly asked him "Do you think there could be a problem?". The husband answers "Maybe", and he does not cross any ethical boundaries about client-attorney confidentiality. Then the judge simply follows the rule "when in doubt, recuse yourself".
- mcrady 4y ago
  IANAL but it seems like it could be a basis for appeal. And what's the point of putting in months of work hearing a case if there's a chance that it will all get nullified.
  - mattkrause 4y ago
    I’m not sure I see how judges recusing themselves could be grounds for appeal. Not recusing oneself though…
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      That’s what they were saying.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > We only know the husband worked in a large company that had SBF as a client back in 2021 He didn't only "work" in the firm; he was a partner in it. Maybe he talked to the partner who managed the SBF work; maybe he didn't. But as a partner he'd have some justification for asking, "Hey, how's that crypto case going?" at least.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    There are almost 200 partners at the firm. It's not that big a thing.
    - ffggffggj 4y ago
      I think you’re right, but I assume the whole idea was to avoid having the formal version of this thread in an appeals court a year from now.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      > not that big a thing "Your Honor, the Prosecution suggests this is not that big a thing!" No. Don't want to go there.
cm2187 4y ago
It's not about the conflict being weak, it's mostly about standard setting. If it is the norm that judges recuse themselves even in case of fairly remote conflict of interest, it will make it very difficult for a judge to not recuse himself in the case of a more problematic conflict of interest.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  In theory, maybe. I can buy it in places judges are elected or subject to popular anything. In practice, federal judges can't be removed except by impeachment, and such a thing is not an impeachable offense. It is otherwise a lifetime appointment. One with a lucrative partner job waiting if they choose to go that route early, regardless of social reputation. They are fairly insulated from being forced to do something based on the standards others want to set.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > In practice, federal judges can't be removed except by impeachment, and such a thing is not an impeachable offense Conflict of interest is one of the things typically listed as impeachable judicial misconduct; not that there is any concrete boundary to “impeachable offense” since the House is free to decide any conduct is or or is not impeachable.
wpietri 4y ago
I think it's a great move in this particular case just because it's so highly watched. A major motivation behind recusal is to maintain confidence in the judicial system. SBF has already been the subject of all sorts of claims of political corruption. Better that this one be squeaky clean, even if sophisticated observers might understand why this sort of connection is innocuous.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Yep. All upside, no downside. Better safe than sorry here.
epgui 4y ago
> The conflict here is very weak Yes, and the ethical bar for the judiciary is supposed to be super strict. It's not even enough to avoid conflicts of interest: one must also avoid the appearance of any potential conflicts of interest.
- cormacrelf 4y ago
  Right on. Forget “what if every judge recused for this level of conflict!”, they already do that, and it doesn’t really put a dent in judge supply.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    I think there are prominent examples where they don't. We notice those because they seem unfair. Recusals that do happen probably don't usually make headlines.
  - DannyBee 4y ago
    Actually, they 100% do not recuse for this level of conflict. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise, or what data you have to support. Recusals are extremely rare, and it is common for judges to have SO's or children or .... in law firms that, at some point, represented someone before a judge, without the person having been involved. Which is the case here. They do not recuse. So no, they do not "already do that". If they did, it really would put a dent in the judge supply - there are not that many federal judges.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  I'm quite aware of the judicial bar, and i don't think it even comes close to "appearance of a potential conflict". Which, as a phrase without interpretation, of course, covers literally everything (IE defendant is a vegan and I am not). So in the end, i simply disagree with you - this is not a close call, as the order is written, and as the bar has ever been interpreted, either by caselaw, or by ethics opinions.
  - epgui 4y ago
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
A judge has to be impeccable. There should be no discussion at all, if the conflict is minor or major. Other judges are avaliable. Reputation and integrity, once lost, cannot be recovered
- DannyBee 4y ago
  This sort of ignores the point - it all depends how you define conflict, which is where any meat of this sort of thing is. There is no real conflict here. At all. By any definition you will find of a conflict, or any advisory opinions, or any caselaw. That a family member once worked for a firm that, at some point in the past, may have represented a corporation that someone worked for (they aren't even sure), where the family member: 1. did not work on it 2. has no knowledge of it 3. wasn't even aware of this until informed. is simply not a conflict. Someone is always going to argue you should recuse. While recusal is super-rare, recusal motions are not. Someone will always try to paint a conflict about something! So your theory on reputation doesn't work in practice - you are going to get smeared either way. That's the fun of being a judge.
  - epivosism 4y ago
    Genuinely curious - what is your explanation for why the recusal happened? Your arguments paint it as clearly unusual or invalid but not knowing you or the details of the case, what is your case for believing you rather than the facts of the case, that a professional judge made this decision? Could you lay out an alternative explanation for why this happened? i.e. you're making strong claims that this is obviously wrong, yet not explaining why it happened. Barring detailed knowledge, tie usually goes to reality rather than the HN commenter.
RobLach 4y ago
Even a reasonable excuse won't stop a headline that will muck up things.
philippejara 4y ago
It's a huge case being watched by the entire world, even if there is a minuscule chance of it causing an actual issue, or there is the possible bad optics, I fail to see why the judge wouldn't do it. Nobody is going to excuse themselves on these terms for regular cases where the entire world isn't watching, but why risk anything in this case? The law might be blind -or at least should-, but the audience isn't and that audience might very well include federal agencies and nutjobs.
twblalock 4y ago
The conflict may be weak, bur the case has a much higher profile than normal.