publications_unodc_commentary-e

not requiring the disqualification of a judge in a case involving that corporation. Butoften the issue of recusal implicates several considerations, any of which mightrequire disqualification. The stock owned by a judge may be of such significance tohim or her, regardless of its de minimis value when viewed in light of the size of thecorporation, that recusal is warranted. Likewise, the judge should be aware that thepublic might view stock ownership as a disqualifying interest. Nevertheless, thejudge should not use obviously de minimis stock holdings as a means to avoid thetrial of cases. If a judge is frequently recused because of stock ownership, he or sheshould divest himself or herself of such stock. 38Duty to restrain the activities of family members69. A judge should discourage members of his or her family from engaging indealings that would reasonably appear to exploit the judge’s judicial position. Thisis necessary to avoid creating an appearance of exploitation of office or favouritismand to minimize the potential for disqualification.38 United States of America, Commonwealth of Virginia Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee,Opinion 2000-5. See Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, High Court of Australia, [2001]2 LRC 369, (2000) 205 CLR 337.64