The mere fact that a judge had previously drafted and enforced employment-related arbitration agreements while in private practice does not warrant the judge's recusal in an employment-related arbitration matter, according to a federal district court in the Virgin Islands.

In Edmunds v. Wyatt V.I., Inc., No. SX-02-CV-642, 2007 WL 4698597 (D. V.I. Nov. 6, 2007), Edmunds filed notice requesting recusal of the judge an arbitration-related employment dispute, alleging that the judge's prior practice in drafting and enforcing employment-related arbitration agreements constituted probable bias or prejudice against the party challenging the arbitration agreement.

The judge acknowledged prior experience in drafting and enforcing employment arbitration agreements, and disclosed his former firm's representation of the third-party defendant in an unrelated matter. However, the judge found no justification for disqualification of a judge "simply because of prior representation of a party or because the judge advocated one side of the issue or another on behalf of a client while practicing law."

The judge also noted that "[a]lternative dispute resolution ("ADR") methods such as arbitration are simply methods of loss control, analogous to waivers, releases, or disclaimers," and implied that he was fully capable of properly weighing the use of ADR as an appropriate or inappropriate method in the instant dispute.