In 1985, a federal appeals court in Chicago cited the requirement of the
appearance of impartiality when it ordered the recusal of a federal judge who,
planning to leave the bench, had hired a "headhunter" to approach law firms in
the city. By mistake—and, in fact, contrary to the judge's instructions—the
headhunter contacted two opposing firms in a case then pending before the judge.
One firm rejected the overture outright. The other was negative but not quite as
definitive. Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge Richard A. Posner emphasized
that the trial judge "is a judge of unblemished honor and sterling character,"
and that he "is accused of, and has committed, no impropriety." Nevertheless,
the court ordered the judge to recuse himself because of the appearance of
partiality. "The dignity and independence of the judiciary are diminished when
the judge comes before lawyers in the case in the role of a suppliant for
employment. The public cannot be confident that a case tried under such
conditions will be decided in accordance with the highest traditions of the
judiciary." Although both law firms had refused to offer him employment, the
court held that "an objective observer might wonder whether [the judge] might
not at some unconscious level favor the firm … that had not as definitively
rejected him."

In the fall and winter of 1984, a criminal-trial judge in the District
of Columbia was discussing a managerial position with the Department of Justice
while the local U.S. attorney's office—which is part of the department—was
prosecuting an intent-to-kill case before him. Following the conviction and
sentence, the judge was offered the department job and accepted. On appeal, the
United States conceded that the judge had acted improperly by presiding at the
trial during the employment negotiations. It argued, however, that the
conviction should not be overturned. The appeals court disagreed. Relying on
Judge Posner's opinion in the Chicago case, as well as the rules of
judicial ethics, the court vacated the conviction even though the defendant did
not "claim that his trial was unfair or that the [the judge] was actually biased
against him." The court was "persuaded that an objective observer might have
difficulty understanding that [the judge] did not … realize … that others might
question his impartiality."

In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel’s Office
for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by an attorney
named Lester Hyman. Roberts replied:

I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions
with Mr. Hyman’s firm about future employment.