Bough suggested demands that he step aside in the Gibson commission case were not raised over ethical issues. The demands focused on political donations to Bough’s wife.
Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the Inman Community and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!
Stephen R. Bough, the Missouri federal judge overseeing a high-profile commission lawsuit, rejected demands from several brokerages that he step aside, suggesting such calls for recusal were driven more by “litigation strategy than by ethical concerns.”
Judge Stephen R. Bough
Bough issued his order Thursday afternoon in response to a request from Hanna Holdings — parent company of Howard Hanna — that the judge recuse himself from a case known as Gibson. Hanna Holdings had argued that lawyers representing homeseller-plaintiffs in the case had donated money to the political campaign of Bough’s wife, Amy Bough.
Amy Bough is a member of the Kansas City, Missouri, city council.
HomeServices of America parent Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Crye-Leike later joined Hanna Holdings in pushing for Judge Bough to step aside. The companies argued that the political donations gave “the appearance of impropriety” and that refusing to recuse would create such an appearance.
However, in his order Thursday, Judge Bough rejected those arguments.
Among other things, Bough argues in his order that the political donations in question were disclosed to Hanna Holdings long before they filed a motion to recuse the judge. The order points to a final settlement hearing for Sitzer | Burnett, a different but similar antitrust commission lawsuit, that took place in May 2024. Citing both Bough’s memory and the court transcript, the order recalls that Bough looked around the courtroom and mentioned aloud several attorneys who had donated to his wife’s campaign.
“As a result, the court, out of an abundance of caution asked, ‘Would anyone else like to be heard on this potential conflict,’” the order states. “The court received no response.”
Bough goes on to argue that he remembers Hanna Holdings’ attorneys being present in the courtroom at the time. The company has not denied that its laweyers were present, but has argued that they had no reason to be there because they didn’t represent any parties in the Sitzer | Burnett case.
“The Court finds this non-denial telling,” Bough writes in his order.
Either way, though, Bough argues that the political donations “were disclosed to Hanna Holdings’ counsel long before the present motion was filed.”
“It was not until six months after the transcript from the final settlement hearing was filed in this case that Hanna Holdings raised objections regarding contributions to Councilwoman Bough’s campaign committee,” the order continues. “The timing of Hanna Holding’s motion is noteworthy as it occurred after the court denied its motion to dismiss in December 2024 and motion to certify an interlocutory appeal in February 2025. Based on this timing, it appears Hanna Holdings’ motivations may have been driven more by ‘litigation strateg[y] than by ethical concerns.’”
Bough also objected to other parts of the demand that he step aside. He mentions at one point in the order, for example, that Hanna Holdings cites a quote from a publication by the American Judicature Society. But Bough says he has “not been able to locate this quote.” Additionally, Bough argues that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that not every campaign contribution creates a bias that would require a judge to step aside.
He later argues that the campaign contributions from one of the attorneys in question are so small relative to the amount Bough’s wife raised that “no reasonable person knowing all the relevant facts could believe this court would be swayed” by them.
Bough further writes that he is “shocked” that attorneys would “so mislead” the court regarding a political action committee associated with fire fighters and which received a donation from Michael Ketchmark. The political action committee, Bough writes, has endorsed candidates across the political spectrum and gave $500 to Amy Bough’s campaign in 2019.
Ketchmark has litigated both Sitzer | Burnett and Gibson, and is the highest profile attorney working on antitrust commission cases.
“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,” the order states.
Though Bough is unsparing in his order, legal wrangling is ultimately unlikely to end, as brokerage defendants have also asked to move the Gibson litigation to states other than Missouri. For the time being, though, Bough will continue to oversee Gibson.
Read Judge Bough’s full order here:
