On 8/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >This might be considered a violation of Rule 2157, wrt the R2158 > >requirement to assign a judgement ASAP. > > I believe not, because self-recusal removes the obligation to judge. > However, as there's only one qualified panel for this case, I'd just > have to assign the same panel again.
Arguably, removing an obligation does not count as satisfying it. -root
