Gibson judge refuses to step down 

The judge overseeing an ongoing commissions lawsuit in Missouri refused to step aside after defense attorneys alleged he did not properly disclose political contributions made to his wife.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Bough denied a motion led by Hanna Holdings to recuse himself from the Missouri case known as Gibson. Berkshire Energy and Crye-Leike previously joined Hanna's call for recusal.

The argument for recusal: Hanna and other defendants said Bough should step down because several plaintiff attorneys in Gibson made political campaign donations to Bough's wife, Andrea Bough, a Kansas City councilwoman who assumed office in 2019. Those donations, the defendants claimed, were not properly disclosed. 

Motions didn't meet 'burden of proof': In an April 10 filing, Bough said no reasonable person knowing all the relevant facts would believe a judge would be swayed by relatively small political donations made to their spouse. The donations, totaling around $2,500, were all made years before the case was filed.

"Context matters and the Court holds that Hanna Holdings has failed to meet the heavy burden of proof to warrant recusal," Bough wrote in the filing. He noted that Hanna's motivations appeared to be driven more by litigation strategy rather than ethical concerns.

Disclosure timeline challenged: The judge also pushed back on the assertion that plaintiff attorneys didn't disclose the donations until January. The disclosure was previously made in the Sitzer/Burnett case settlement hearing last May while Hanna attorneys were in attendance, he said.

The Hanna attorneys have also donated to his wife's campaign, Bough noted, something they neglected to mention in the motion.

The donation claim that 'shocked' Bough: One donation mentioned in the motion was from Taxpayer Unlimited, a political action committee associated with a firefighter organization that lead plaintiff attorney Michael Ketchmark donated to. Ketchmark did not donate to Bough's wife, but the PAC donated $500 to her campaign in 2019.

Bough wrote that he was "frankly shocked" that any lawyer would try to mislead the court about the source of the donation.

"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 political contribution to a judge's spouse can serve as the basis for recusal. Accordingly, no reasonable questions of impartiality are present," Bough wrote.