Legal Definitions - litem suam facere

Litem suam facere is a Latin legal phrase originating from Roman law, which literally translates to "to make a suit one's own." It describes a serious breach of duty by a judge or arbiter who, through imprudence, misconduct, or a failure to adhere to proper procedure, compromises their impartiality and the integrity of the legal process.

Essentially, when a judge committed litem suam facere, it meant they had allowed personal interest, bias, or a disregard for established rules to influence their handling of a case, rather than remaining an objective and neutral arbiter. This failure could involve not following the prescribed legal "formula" or procedures, or even engaging in corrupt behavior. In Roman law, a litigant who was harmed by such judicial misconduct could bring a private legal action against the judge.

Here are some examples illustrating the concept of litem suam facere:

• Example 1: Disregarding Procedural Rules

  Imagine a modern-day arbitration hearing where the agreed-upon rules clearly state that both parties must be given an equal opportunity to present their witnesses. The arbiter, perhaps due to a personal belief that one side's witnesses are irrelevant, abruptly cuts off their testimony and refuses to hear key evidence, even though it was properly submitted according to the rules.

  Explanation: By arbitrarily ignoring the established procedural rules and denying one party a fair chance to present their case, the arbiter has failed in their duty to apply the rules impartially. They have, in essence, "made the suit their own" by imposing their own arbitrary process rather than adhering to the agreed-upon legal framework, thereby compromising the fairness of the proceedings.

• Example 2: Demonstrating Personal Bias

  Consider a judge presiding over a contentious family law case involving child custody. Throughout the trial, the judge makes several public remarks from the bench indicating a strong personal disapproval of one parent's lifestyle choices, even though those choices are not directly relevant to their parenting ability. The final custody decision appears to heavily favor the other parent, seemingly influenced by the judge's personal moral judgments rather than solely by the evidence presented regarding the children's best interests.

  Explanation: In this scenario, the judge's overt expressions of personal bias and moral judgment demonstrate a failure to remain neutral and objective. By allowing personal feelings and opinions to influence the judgment, the judge has "made the suit their own," letting individual prejudices dictate the outcome instead of impartially applying the law to the facts presented in the case.

• Example 3: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

  Suppose a judge is overseeing a complex environmental lawsuit where a large corporation is accused of pollution. Unbeknownst to the litigants, the judge holds a significant, undisclosed financial interest in the defendant corporation's primary competitor. Despite this clear conflict of interest, the judge continues to preside over the case and ultimately issues a ruling that severely penalizes the defendant corporation, indirectly benefiting the judge's personal investments.

  Explanation: Here, the judge's undisclosed financial conflict of interest represents a severe breach of judicial duty. By allowing a personal financial stake to influence their judicial decision, the judge has clearly "made the suit their own," prioritizing personal gain over the impartial administration of justice. This conduct fundamentally undermines the fairness and integrity of the legal system.