while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain value. The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially. Responsibility and consequences A judge who has grounds to recuse themself is expected to do so. If a judge does not know that grounds exist to recuse themselves the error is harmless. If a judge does not recuse themselves when they should have known to do so, they may be subject to sanctions, which vary by jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, if an appellate court finds a judgment to have been made when the judge in question should have been recused, it may set aside the judgment and return the case for retrial. Waiver and substitution The recusal rule may be avoided or ignored if all parties and the judge agree, although in practice this rarely occurs. If recusal is avoided in this manner, a full and complete record of the facts that qualify as grounds, above, must be made for the appellate court. If a judge fails to recuse themselves sua sponte and a party believes the judge has a bias the party may motion for substitution. In some jurisdictions litigants may have the right to substitute a judge, even if no bias is demonstrated. See also Civil rights R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Substitution (law) Nemo iudex in causa sua References Wis. Stat. sec. 757.19(2) Wis. SCR 60.04(4) State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d 411, 436 (1977). Further reading External links Decision of Judge Ware denying motion for recusal in Perry v. Schwarzenegger Quebec Court of Appeal decision denying motion for recusal (C.C. c. G.C., 2013 QCCA 239 (CanLII)) AJH Lawyers Pty Ltd v Careri and Others (2013) 34 VR 236 Due Process and Judicial Disqualification: The Need for Reform, Gabriel D. Serbulea, 2011, Pepperdine Law Review, has an appendix including statutes and precedents in all 50 of the United States. Legal ethics Legal procedure Conflict of interest Conflict of interest mitigation