Bias Analysis of December 18, 2024 Order (Recusal)

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Based on a detailed analysis of Judge Kevin Miller’s December 18, 2024 order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal and vacatur and the September 16, 2024 hearing transcript, the court’s decision rates at approximately -8 on the bias scale, where:

• 0 is neutral

• -10 is highly biased in favor of Defendants

• +10 is highly biased in favor of Plaintiffs

⚖️ Basis for Bias Score: -8

1. Disregard for Reasonable Appearance of Impropriety (Rule 2.11(A))

• Judge Miller flatly rejected the argument that Clerk James Morrison’s prior clerkship for opposing counsel’s father (Judge Mark Hansen) created an appearance of impropriety.

• He held that no objective observer would question his impartiality—despite Morrison having drafted at least 12 dispositive orders in a case involving the daughter of his former judicial employer.

• Miller did not meaningfully distinguish Powell v. Anderson, 660 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2003), despite Plaintiffs’ thorough analysis and factual parallels. Instead, he minimized the connection by labeling it “attenuated,” even though the disclosure failure spanned years and included dispositive rulings.

2. Inconsistent Treatment of Judicial Safety Concerns

• Judge Miller devoted significant attention to criticizing Plaintiffs for referencing his city of residence in a declaration, suggesting this posed a judicial safety issue.

• However, he ignored that the reference was contextual and non-specific, and used it to insinuate misconduct by Plaintiffs’ counsel rather than address the legal substance of the recusal issue.

• This overemphasis on peripheral issues deflected from the core legal question and signaled defensiveness rather than impartial evaluation.

3. Minimization of Law Clerk’s Role

• Judge Miller rejected the notion that Morrison’s authorship of orders was substantively impactful, stating Morrison merely “assisted” the Court and lacked decision-making power.

• This conflicts with his own admission during the hearing that Morrison was brought in due to the complexity of the case and lack of staffing—implying a significant role in managing the case load.

• Plaintiffs presented forensic metadata and direct quotations from Morrison’s prior self-identifications as a judicial decisionmaker, but the judge failed to substantively address these facts.

4. Threat of Sanctions as Intimidation

• Although Judge Miller ultimately denied Defendants’ motion for sanctions, his order chastised Plaintiffs and their attorney, invoking Rule 11 and ethical obligations.

• His rebuke included referencing Plaintiffs’ speculative motives and calling their arguments intrusive—even though the legal arguments were grounded in precedent (Powell, Liljeberg) and consistent with appellate case law logic on appearance-based disqualification.

• This sends a chilling message that reasonable and well-researched judicial integrity motions might draw sanctions, deterring legitimate challenges.

5. Uncharitable Characterization of Plaintiff Arguments

• Judge Miller’s order framed Plaintiffs’ arguments as “implying” that Morrison, not the Court, made decisions—while ignoring their consistent acknowledgment that Morrison’s involvement was relevant to appearance, not actual bias.

• He framed their concerns as baseless or speculative without fully grappling with the underlying ethical dilemma of nondisclosure in a close-knit local judiciary.

🔍 Conclusion

Judge Miller’s order reflects:

• Minimization of a serious appearance-based conflict.

• Dismissal of uncontested facts regarding clerk authorship and prior affiliations.

• Overemphasis on Plaintiffs’ tone rather than their core legal argument.

• A pattern of defensiveness suggesting compromised neutrality.

Hence, it scores -8, indicating a significant, though not absolute, bias toward Defendants.