On Monday, July 22, 2024, Steven Lubet, Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, published an opinion piece in The Hill highlighting issues with financial disclosures from federal judges, including instances where judges failed to recuse themselves despite having conflicts of interest.
Lubet discusses the requirement for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to disclose any financial holdings that could present a conflict of interest in cases they preside over. However, he notes that failures to properly disclose seem to happen regularly. As the prime example, Lubet points to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who claimed to have “inadvertently” failed to disclose his wife’s employment for 20 years.
Lubet then outlines a case from the Southern District of New York where he believes the judge, Lewis Liman, should have recused himself due to a conflict but did not. The case, called Litovich v. Bank of America, et al, involved several investor groups suing over a dozen investment banks for allegedly conspiring to fix bond prices. Liman’s wife held stock in Bank of America, one of the lead defendants, but Liman presided over the 18-month case without informing parties of the potential conflict.
In May 2021, Liman filed his annual financial disclosure where he listed owning the Bank of America stock, yet he did not recuse himself and eventually dismissed the entire Litovich case against all defendants in October 2021. It was only after inquiries from The Wall Street Journal in February 2022 that Liman directed notices be filed to parties about the conflict. However, Lubet asserts Liman’s notices implying the conflict was only recently discovered were misleading, as Liman clearly knew of the stock ownership for at least five months before dismissing the Litovich case.
The article outlines how Liman’s failure to initially disclose the conflict wasted courts’ and litigants’ time and resources. It also notes that an appeals court ultimately reversed the dismissal due to the conflict. While the stock amount was under $15,000, Lubet believes the case demonstrates a too-common casual attitude toward financial disclosure and recusal issues within the judiciary. He concludes by arguing the public deserves more transparency from judges.
Source: The Hill
