In a sharply worded nine-page opinion yesterday, Judge Stephen R. Bough, who oversaw the Burnett case and is currently presiding over the largest commission copycat lawsuit (known as Gibson), declined to step down from that case, calling into doubt “small and selected” arguments put forth by brokerage defendant Howard Hanna.
Bough, who has acknowledged that plaintiff attorneys donated money to his wife, a city councilor in Kansas City, pointed out that defendants have donated far more, and called into question some of the basic facts presented by Howard Hanna (a defendant in Gibson), which had argued it never had a chance to address the allegations.
Two other defendants in Gibson, namely Crye-Leike and Berkshire Hathaway Energy (the parent company of HomeServices of America), had signed onto Howard Hanna’s motion for Bough’s recusal.
“The Court holds that no reasonable person knowing all the relevant facts (emphasis in original) could believe this Court would be swayed by (plaintiffs’ campaign donations),” Bough wrote.
Indeed, Bough pointed out that one of the law firms representing Howard Hanna in the case has also donated to his wife’s campaign, noting those specific attorneys did not sign onto the request for him to step down.
He also said that a lawyer from that firm was present at the Burnett hearing when Bough originally acknowledged the campaign contributions, despite Howard Hanna attesting they only learned of the issue in January of this year.
“(T)he Court is hard pressed to believe, given its import to this case, that attorneys for Defendants were unaware of the occurrences,” he wrote. “The Court suspects that if it were to order the production of documents or billing records by Defendants and their attorneys that mention the Burnett final settlement hearing, these documents would predate January 2025.”
Bough further speculated that the timing of Howard Hanna’s motion—made shortly after Bough dismissed two other attempts to throw out the case and appeal another ruling—writing it “may have been driven more by litigation strategy than by ethical concerns.”
Specifically looking at the campaign contributions, Bough compared the $1,750 donated by one of the plaintiffs attorneys to $41,360 donated by lawyers representing defendants, writing that “context matters” when determining whether a recusal is appropriate.
Bough has also previously pointed out that local REALTOR® associations have donated to his wife’s campaign.
In maybe his sharpest criticism of Howard Hanna’s arguments, Bough focused on allegations regarding a local firefighter union’s political action committee known as Taxpayers Unlimited. Back in 2024, a real estate agent who objected to Burnett settlements pointed out that another plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Ketchmark, had donated to this organization—which, in turn, donated to Bough’s wife’s campaign.
Howard Hanna, in its motion for Bough’s recusal, claimed that Ketchmark donated over $100,000 to Taxpayers Unlimited over multiple years, and that Taxpayers Unlimited donated $8,300 to Bough’s wife.
Bough wrote that while he can “overlook an objector/realtor mischaracterizing” the contributions, he is “frankly shocked” that the attorney representing Howard Hanna “would so mislead the courts about Taxpayers Unlimited being anything other than what it is.”
Taxpayers Unlimited donates and endorses dozens of candidates across the political spectrum, Bough said. (Public records show about 25 different donations to candidates in the months before the Burnett trail, including $68 to Bough’s wife in July of 2023).
“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,” he wrote.
Finally, Bough noted that his wife is term-limited, and closed down her campaign committee last year.
In response to an emailed inquiry, a spokesperson from Howard Hanna said the company was “currently evaluating the Court’s decision and any next steps.”
Howard Hanna has also requested the case be moved to Pennsylvania, a request Bough previously denied but which an appeals court directed him to reconsider.