Cited by

Ct. of Ariz., ¶ 29 (2005).

-95 & 295 (2005), our supreme court considered “a motion to disqualify” four supreme court justices, at least one of whom had previously decided to recuse voluntarily the last time the same case had come before the court.

Ct. of Ariz., ¶ 16 (2005).

Ct. of Ariz., ¶ 16 (2005).

Ct. of the State of Ariz., ¶ 31 (2005) (concluding that article 6, section 3 provides for this Court's "constitutional power over attorneys as officers of the court").

Ct. of Ariz., that 1 We subsequently extended the pilot program until December 31, 2021.

But that court's adoption of a rule "does not constitute a prior determination that the rule is valid and constitutional against any challenge," Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Ariz. , , 298, , 1108 (2005), and this court "has the power to determine the validity and constitutionality of the rules promulgated by the Arizona Supreme Court in connection with a case before [it]," State v. Meek , , 151

Of course, a court “has authority to require a lawyer’s services, even on a pro bono basis, to assist in the administration of justice.”

“A judge may on his own motion, if he acts timely, recuse himself even though the reason given might not be sufficient to form the basis of a legal disqualification.” Zuniga v. Superior Court (Bernstein), , , (stating that a judge may recuse himself from judicial duties “even when the canons do not require recusal”) The second judge thus correctly denied CSA’s motion to vacate.

8 context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose.‟” quoting Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.

¶9 When a statute is ambiguous, “‘we consider the statute’s context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose.’” quoting Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.

Accordingly, we also “‘consider the statute’s context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose.’” quoting Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.

This administrative power “is a function of its responsibility to administer an integrated judiciary.” ¶ 27

Because the promulgation of a rule by the Arizona Supreme Court is not a prior judicial determination of its validity

(“Our adoption of a rule does not constitute a prior determination that the rule is valid and constitutional against any challenge ____Such a determination awaits a judicial proceeding in which opposing interests are provided a full opportunity to be heard.”).

¶ 29 , -41, ¶¶ 6-7 , -16 (2000).