judgesonmerit.org

Here’s a recusal question related to judicial elections, but one with a twist. What happens when a sitting judge or justice pays or has paid a lawyer or law firm for help in an election case and that lawyer or firm appears before the judge? That’s the issue facing Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Prosser paid $75,000 to the Troupis law firm for representation in the recent recount election. Jim Troupis, head of the Troupis law firm, is scheduled to argue before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a major First Amendment case in September. Should Prosser recuse?

Leading ethics experts told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he should. New York University School of Law professor Stephen Gillers explained that “Prosser shouldn’t hear the case because Troupis’ work was so important to keeping Prosser on the bench and because it occurred so recently.”

But when asked a few months ago, Prosser responded that he thought it would be okay to sit on the case. The director of his campaign, Brian Nemoir, recently told the newspaper that “Prosser planned to stay on the case and could remain impartial.”

Judges don’t live in a vacuum and certainly have many ties to other lawyers before (and after) they join the bench. But should a judge preside over case sof those who were very helpful in getting or keeping him on the bench? Elections raise more than questions about monetary campaign contributions, and this case highlights another reason to find a better way to pick judges.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS