Rule 8. Disqualification.

 A.  Magisterial district judges shall disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

   (1)  they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

   (2)  they served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom they previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the magisterial district judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

   (3)  they know that they, individually or as a fiduciary, or their spouse or a minor child residing in their household has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or is a party to the proceeding or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

   (4)  they or their spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

     (a)   is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of a party;

     (b)   is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

     (c)   is known by the magisterial district judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

     (d)   is to the knowledge of the magisterial district judge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

 B.  Magisterial district judges shall inform themselves about their personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to inform themselves about the personal financial interests of their spouse and minor children residing in their household.

   Official Note

   This rule is derived from Canon 3C, American Bar Association Code of Judicial Conduct. For the purpose of this rule, ‘‘fiduciary’’ includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee and guardian, and ‘‘financial interest’’ means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that: (1) ownership in mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a ‘‘financial interest’’ in such securities unless the magisterial district judge participates in the management of the fund; (2) an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization is not a ‘‘financial interest’’ in securities held by the organization; (3) the proprietary interest of a policy holder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association or a similar proprietary interest is a ‘‘financial interest’’ in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest; and (4) ownership of government securities is a ‘‘financial interest’’ in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities. ‘‘Degree of relationship’’ is calculated according to the civil law system. Thus, the third degree of relationship test would, for example, disqualify the magisterial district judge if they or their spouse’s parents, grandparents, uncles or aunts, siblings, or nieces or nephews or their spouses were a party or a lawyer in the proceeding, but would not disqualify them if a cousin were a party or lawyer in the proceeding.

   A lawyer in a governmental agency does not necessarily have an association with other lawyers employed by that agency within the meaning of subdivision A(2). Magisterial district judges formerly employed by a governmental agency, however, should disqualify themselves in a proceeding if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such association.

   The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a lawyer-relative of the magisterial district judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the magisterial district judge. Under appropriate circumstances, the fact that ‘‘their impartiality might reasonably be questioned’’ under subdivision A, or that the lawyer-relative is known by the magisterial district judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be ‘‘substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding’’ under subdivision A(4)(c) may require their disqualification.

   The provisions of this Rule 8 amended February 1, 1973, 3 Pa.B. 275.