judgesonmerit.org

The West Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that Judge Michael Thornsbury is not required to recuse from the case involving Massey Coal Company.  According to the Associated Press (via Forbes.com), the high court found that “Conflict-of-interest allegations are not sufficient grounds for disqualification.”  However, the Supreme Court also ordered Judge Thornsbury to hold a hearing on the administration of the medical monitoring fund and what fees it can charge and to report back to the Supreme Court on that issue.

Not long ago we reported that there was another recusal petition involving a West Virginia judge in a case involving Massey Coal Company, the same company involved in Caperton v. Massey (the recusal case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court).  Judge Michael Thornsbury now has refused to recuse himself from the case.

According to the Charleston Gazette, “Thornsbury said allegations made against him by lawyers for local residents were “false and/or misleading” and that he should not have to step down from the lawsuit.”  The plaintiffs had alleged a friendship between the judge and Massey CEO George Blakenship, as well as the judge’s  appointment of a business partner as administrator over a medical monitoring program.

Also at issue was financial support for the judge’s campaign by one of Massey’s lawyers.  Regarding allegations about the defense attorney’s hosting of a fundraiser for the judge, the judge’s response to the recusal petition explained:

“The fact that both plaintiffs lawyers and defense lawyers sponsored the event shows the high esteem Judge Thornsbury is held by the entire bar,” wrote Jackson Kelly lawyer Daniel L. Stickler. “It was the shared belief of the sponsors of the event that Judge Thornsbury is a fair and impartial judge who never showed bias or prejudice towards any litigant appearing before him.”

It doesn’t matter that members of the plaintiffs and defense bar supported the judge’s campaign. The point is that someone felt uncomfortable having a judge presides over their case once they learned the other party was represented by one of the judge’s campaign supporters.  No one should ever have to worry that a judge’s decisions could be swayed by campaign contributions.

Judicial elections create an enviroment in which candidates need money to finance their campaigns.  The most likely sources of that money are lawyers, law firms and entities that frequently litigate in the state courts.  When judges later preside over cases involving lawyers or parties who financially supported their campaigns, it creates the perception that justice might be for sale. This undermines public trust and confidence in the courts and should not be permitted to continue. The solution is to get judges out of the fundraising business.