Judge Stephen R. Bough Responds to Recusal Request in Gibson Case

In a recent nine-page opinion, Judge Stephen R. Bough, who is overseeing the Gibson case—a significant commission copycat lawsuit—rejected a motion to recuse himself from the proceedings. The motion was brought forth by Howard Hanna, one of the brokerage defendants in the case, raising questions about Bough’s impartiality due to campaign contributions made to his wife.

Background of the Case

The Gibson case follows the Burnett case, a previous judicial milestone in which Bough played a critical role. During his review, Judge Bough emphasized that the arguments made by Howard Hanna for his recusal were “small and selected,” suggesting they lacked substantive grounding.

Campaign Contributions Under Scrutiny

Judge Bough acknowledged that attorneys involved in the case had made donations to his wife’s campaign for city council in Kansas City. However, he pointed out that the sum contributed by the plaintiff’s attorneys was significantly less compared to donations made by the defendants. This led him to question the assertion that his decisions could be influenced by those contributions.

• Donation to plaintiff’s attorney: $1,750
• Donation to defendants’ attorneys: $41,360

Concerns Over Timing and Strategy

Notably, Judge Bough highlighted the timing of Howard Hanna’s recusal request, which followed his dismissal of two prior defense attempts to dismiss the case. Bough speculated that the motion could be more about litigation strategy than legitimate ethical worries.

Allegations Regarding Political Action Committees

In his opinion, Bough confronted allegations from Howard Hanna regarding contributions from the firefighter union’s political action committee, Taxpayers Unlimited. He contended that any mischaracterization of the relationship between these contributions and his wife’s campaign was misleading.

Response to Howard Hanna’s Claims

Bough criticized Howard Hanna’s legal team for failing to provide a sound basis for their claims regarding recusal, asserting that the law does not support the rationale that a lawyer’s contributions to a PAC—which then donates to a judge’s spouse—are grounds for recusal.

“Counsel fails to cite to a single reported opinion or ethics rule to support the position that a lawyer’s contribution to a PAC which happens to make a political contribution to a judge’s spouse can serve as the basis for recusal,” Bough wrote.

Next Steps for Howard Hanna

In reaction to the ruling, a spokesperson for Howard Hanna acknowledged that they were “currently evaluating the Court’s decision and any next steps.” The company has also sought a change of venue to Pennsylvania, a request that Judge Bough had previously denied but which an appeals court has directed him to reconsider.

Conclusion

Judge Bough’s firm stance against the recusal motion highlights the complexities involved in cases with potential conflicts of interest and the importance of maintaining judicial independence amidst political contributions.