The survey included all trial and intermediate appellate judges in four States chosen for their geographic and demographic diversity: Arkansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Ohio. The survey contained 70 closed-ended questions that required respondents to select the best available answer, seven questions on demographics and the size of the respondents' courts, and six open- ended questions that called for narrative responses. The closed- ended questions posed situations that presented possibilities of disqualification that involved relationships, conflict of interest, and bias. Since judges may have different attitudes depending on whether they are resolving their own ethical dilemmas or that of a colleague, two versions of the survey were randomly administered. One asked judges how they would personally respond to the hypothetical scenarios posed, and another asked judges how they would advise a colleague to respond. One surprising finding is that judges were more willing to disqualify themselves when confronted with ethical dilemmas than when making recommendations to their colleagues regarding these same issues. Also, the average survey scores across all three types of disqualification issues (relationships, bias, and conflict of interest) showed a high rate of ambivalence overall. This suggests that the rules of judicial ethics as they pertain to the issue of impartiality and the need for disqualification are not providing judges with adequate guidance and are in need of clarification. Recommendations for the management of disqualification issues are offered.