94-Year-Old Federal Judge's Snarky Remarks: 'Regrettable,' But Not Recusal-Worthy
A misguided recusal motion leaves a bitter taste in Judge Robert Sweet's mouth.
UPDATE (4/21/2017, 2 p.m.): Note the UPDATE added below; the case is no longer before Judge Sweet.
Few things antagonize judges more than unjustified motions for recusal. Not only do these motions consume judicial resources and slow down litigation, but they also implicitly (or sometimes explicitly) question the ethics of the jurist in question.
Earlier this month, we covered a colorful order denying recusal that derided a “frivolous” disqualification motion as “smoke and mirrors.” And now we bring you this similarly striking opinion, via Law360:
Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now
A cheeky New York federal judge refused Friday to take himself off a case brought by a former JPMorgan Chase & Co. executive who claims the bank fired her for flagging possible fraud, saying his wisecracks don’t rise to the level of bias.
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet said in a written decision his remarks expressing impatience with the seven-year-old case don’t meet the “the high degree of antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible” necessary for him to recuse himself.
At issue were comments the self-described “flippant” judge made to counsel, including, “I would do anything to get rid of this case.” In a January hearing when the 94-year-old Judge Sweet declined to hand off the case to another judge over scheduling issues, he quipped, “I wouldn’t wish this case on my worst enemy. No, I’ve lived with it and I suppose I can say I’ll probably die with it.”
As we noted previously in a quick shout-out to this case, the judge did get a bit “snarky” with his comments. The figure-skating jurist seemed to warn counsel — for both parties, not just the plaintiff executive — that they were on thin ice.
(It’s not shocking that Judge Sweet dished it out like that. Being old and life-tenured = DGAF. See also Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “ill-advised” Donald Trump comments.)
But snarky remarks, plus a few rulings against the plaintiff, do not a recusal make:
Sponsored
Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
In the decision, Judge Sweet said that while his remarks were “regrettable,” they were attempts at humor with lawyers in dealing “a complicated, intensely litigated case” that has dragged on for years — the action has twice been tossed and twice returned by the Second Circuit.
“The three extrajudicial comments made in this case, though mistakenly made, uniformly and without reflection, do not demonstrate bias against the plaintiff but rather frustration at irresolution of the action,” Judge Sweet said.
And now it seems the recusal motion has left a similarly bitter taste in Judge Sweet’s mouth. Note the nonagenarian jurist’s allusion to his nearly four decades of judicial service, in the conclusion to his opinion (posted in full on the next page):
I have been a United States District Court Judge for 39 years. Impartiality and the appearance of impartiality are required to resolve difficult competing claims and to seek just result. This standard applies in all cases, including this one.
Moral of the story: don’t seek recusal unless you’re really, really sure it will get granted. If you move for recusal and don’t succeed, you wind up with a judge who’s even more ticked-off at you than he was before — in this case, a Grumpier Old M[a]n.
Recusal motions make me think of the famous Ralph Waldo Emerson quotation: “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” Or, for all you fans of The Wire:
Sponsored
Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
(Flip to the next page to read Judge Sweet’s opinion.)
UPDATE (4/21/2017, 2 p.m.): Interesting — the case has been reassigned to Judge Denise Cote, without explanation.
Snarky Judge In Ex-JPM Exec Case Not Going Anywhere [Law360]
Earlier: Federal Judge Benchslaps Lawyer For ‘Frivolous,’ ‘Smoke And Mirrors’ Recusal Motion
David Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law and the author of Supreme Ambitions: A Novel. He previously worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@abovethelaw.com.
