Washington ? John Roberts is an appeals court judge with a multimillion-dollar portfolio, a spouse who is a successful lawyer and a roster of clients from his days in private practice.

Those all mean he probably will have to disqualify himself from dozens of Supreme Court cases should he become chief justice. It is a situation that, while not unusual, would leave the nine-member court with a potential for tie votes.

Roberts, whose confirmation hearings are to begin Monday, can minimize his problems. For example, he could put his money in mutual funds or other types of investments. But ethics experts say his early years on the Supreme Court will require diligence to avoid conflicts.

Potential personal conflicts, along with questions about his appellate opinions and correspondence as a lawyer during two Republican administrations, are expected to dominate the hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Supreme Court begins its new term Oct. 3 with a full lineup of cases on issues such as abortion and physician assisted suicide, as well as matters that affect a company’s bottom line.

By law, judges must not participate in cases brought by companies in which judges or family members own stock – even one share. Justices police themselves when it comes to ethical conflicts and cannot be overruled.

“The justice is a law into himself or herself on that issue,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s School of Law.

Young law school graduates who clerk for justices comb through the thousands of appeals filed each year to find possible conflicts. Justices do not have to explain why they are sitting out a case.

The most frequent cause of conflicts is money.

“Most of the justices try to make their finances a nonissue by not holding significant stocks directly. But there are no rules, and it’s ultimately a matter of personal choice,” said Washington lawyer Thomas Goldstein who regularly argues cases at the high court and tracks voting trends.

Disqualifications are not uncommon, especially among the wealthier justices who have extensive stocks. Six of the current eight justices are millionaires.

If a chief justice stays out of a case, the next senior justice presides at oral argument and oversees the voting.