Decided March 12, 2004 The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 536 (AC 23557), is denied. KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

The incident that forms the basis of the presentment occurred in 1995 (1995 incident) and has spawned, directly or indirectly, prior appeals to this court. See Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 80 Conn. App. 536, 835 A.2d 1054 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 410 (2004); Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 60 Conn. App. 698, 760 A.2d 1027 (2000). In the earlier appeal, directly related to the 1995 incident, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court, McWeeny, J., affirming the decision of the plaintiff to reprimand the defendant for violation of rules 8.2 (a) and 8.4 (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(Internal quotation marks omitted). Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 80 Conn.App. 536, 541, 835 A.2d 1054 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 410 (2004). For the following reasons, Attorney Labbadia’s motion to disqualify Judge Frechette is denied.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 80 Conn.App. 536, 541, 835 A.2d 1054 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 410 (2004). It is a fundamental principle that to demonstrate bias sufficient to support a claim of judicial disqualification, the due administration of justice requires that such a demonstration be based on more than opinion or conclusion.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 80 Conn.App. 536, 541, 835 A.2d 1054 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 410 (2004). " It is a fundamental principle that to demonstrate bias sufficient to support a claim of judicial disqualification, the due administration of justice requires that such a demonstration be based on more than opinion or conclusion."

Code of Judicial Conduct, § 2-11. Although the initial non-compliance with Practice Book § 1-23 renders the motion for recusal subject to being denied solely on that basis, Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 80 Conn.App. 536, 541 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 410 (2004), the parties have agreed to the nunc pro tunc filing in order to complete the record and to avoid having to go through this process all over again with a new filing. Judge Conway opined that she was confident that she could "put aside the allegations contained in the April 20, 2011 arrest warrant and render a fair, just, impartial, and unbiased decision."

It is subject to being denied solely on that basis. Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 80 Conn.App. 536, 541 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 410 (2004). See also State v. Tunick, 109 Conn.App. 611, 614, n. 3, 952 A.2d 103 (2008).