Embattled justice plans to sit on case involving law firm he paid $75,000 to for recount
The recount for the State Supreme Court election earlier this year produced more than just a narrow win for incumbent Justice David Prosser -- it also produced hundreds of thousands of dollars in fundraising for the sitting justice.
Prosser, who raised more than $272,000 during this time beyond the actual election, saw most of it coming from out-of-state interests, "including three $50,000 donations and two $25,000 donations." Assistant Attorney General Kloppenburg, who opposed Prosser in the election, also raised vast sums of money, the largest of which was $10,000 from her mother-in-law; all other donations were under $2,500.
Prosser's donations are more concerning for two reasons: first, he ended up winning, so the effect of his donations means more than they do for Kloppenburg, who will not be serving on the Court. Second, his donations could mean a potential conflict of interest, creating a situation where his decision-making on the Court could be influenced by his monetary interests.
Take, for instance, the Troupis Law office, which received $75,000 from Prosser to help assist in the recount. Prosser and the rest of the Court are set to rule on a case involving the law office, and Prosser intends to sit in on the case despite clear biases.
Prosser has previously said he believes he can remain impartial when the case comes before the court Sept. 6. However, experts in legal ethics say it would be inappropriate for Prosser not to recuse himself from the case.Clearly, besides having a temper problem, David Prosser has a problem dealing with ethics as well. Conflicts of interest matter not to Justice Prosser, who himself is a former Republican Speaker of the Assembly.
Prosser's campaign director, Brian Nemoir, said the justice planned to stay on the case and could remain impartial.
...
But legal ethicists say Prosser shouldn't sit on the case because of state ethics rules prohibiting judges from sitting on cases where a reasonable person would question their ability to remain impartial.
Prosser "has put his trust and confidence in this lawyer in retaining him," said Monroe Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School in New York. "The fact that the judge has had this kind of extremely close relationship with this lawyer...might well cause a reasonable person to question the judge's ability to be impartial."