The defendant told me the judge would dismiss my testimony. I’m the judge hearing this case.

Alan spoke in a low voice.

“Your honor my client informs me that he had an encounter with you last week at the Riverside Towers property. That you were visiting a tenant who is one of the plaintiffs in this case. That you made threats about filing complaints and taking legal action. He believes this creates a conflict of interest that requires your recusal.”

Jennifer Cho looked startled; she clearly hadn’t known about any of this. I nodded slowly.

“Mr. Whitmore is correct that I visited my mother who is a resident of Riverside Towers last week. She had complained about lack of heat in her apartment. During that visit I did speak with Mr. Krauss about the heating issue. I did indicate I would file a complaint with the housing authority if the issue wasn’t resolved.”

I paused.

“I did file such a complaint under my mother’s name.”

Alan looked uncomfortable.

“Then your honor must agree that this creates an appearance of impropriety. You have personal involvement in one of the core issues of this case. You’ve taken adverse action against my client. No reasonable person would believe you could be impartial.”

“Mr. Whitmore let me ask you a question. In your motion to dismiss you argue that the tenants’ complaints are exaggerated and don’t rise to the level of habitability violations. You argue that the property management has been diligent in addressing maintenance issues. Are you aware that temperatures in multiple apartments have been recorded below 50 degrees for extended periods in violation of city housing code?”

Alan hesitated.

“The heating system is being repaired your honor. Some delays are inevitable with older buildings.”

“Are you aware that the elevator has been broken for 6 weeks forcing elderly and disabled tenants to climb multiple flights of stairs?”

“That’s being addressed as well.”

“Are you aware that Mr. Krauss told me personally that judges in this county always side with property owners over tenants? That he was confident any tenant testimony would be dismissed as unreliable?”

Alan’s face froze. He looked back at Krauss who had gone even paler.

“Your honor I wasn’t aware of any such statements.”

“I’m sure you weren’t. Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to make my conflict of interest a matter of record. Both parties now know that I have personal knowledge of some of the issues in this case. Both parties have the right to request my recusal.”

I looked at Jennifer Cho.

“Does the defense request that I recuse myself?”

Jennifer’s eyes widened slightly. She understood what I was offering: a judge who had actually witnessed the defendant’s behavior and who had personal knowledge that the landlord was lying about conditions.

She spoke carefully.

“The defense has no objection to your honor presiding over this case.”

I turned to Alan.

“Does the plaintiff request my recusal?”

Alan looked trapped. If he said yes he’d get a different judge but he’d also be admitting on the record that his client was so worried about a fair hearing that he needed to disqualify a judge who had firsthand knowledge.

That would look terrible. If he said no he’d be stuck with me.

He looked back at Krauss who was shaking his head frantically. Alan turned back to me.

“Your honor given the circumstances I believe it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself from this case to avoid any appearance of impropriety.”

“Motion for recusal is noted. I’ll need to consider it carefully and issue a ruling. In the meantime we’ll proceed with today’s scheduled hearing. Return to your tables.”

They walked back and I could see Alan having an intense whispered conversation with Krauss. Karen Yates the property owner looked confused about what was happening.

“We’ll now hear opening statements. Mr. Whitmore you may proceed.”

The Tenants Speak

Allan stood reluctantly. He was a professional and did his job competently.

He argued that the property company had been reasonably diligent in maintaining the building and that some delays were inevitable. He claimed that tenants were exaggerating minor issues and that the lawsuit was frivolous and motivated by tenants who wanted to avoid rent payments.

He spoke for 12 minutes and made his case well. Then Jennifer Cho stood for the tenants.

She was nervous but prepared.

“Your honor this case is about a pattern of systematic neglect that puts elderly and vulnerable tenants at risk. It’s about a property manager who has learned to exploit legal technicalities while ignoring basic human needs. We will present evidence that Riverside Properties has knowingly violated housing codes for months. That they’ve ignored repeated complaints, that they’ve retaliated against tenants who speak up. That Mr. Krauss has specifically told tenants that legal complaints won’t matter because the court system favors landlords.”

She glanced at me.

“We will prove that these tenants deserve better and that the law requires better. Call your first witness.”

Jennifer called an elderly man named Philip Sterling who lived on the fourth floor. He testified about the broken elevator and how his wife with a walker couldn’t leave the apartment for 3 weeks until the elevator was temporarily fixed.

Alan cross-examined him about whether he’d documented his complaints properly and whether he’d paid rent on time. Philip got flustered and contradicted himself once; I could see this was what Krauss had meant about unrepresented tenants not performing well in court.

Next was a woman named Gladys Kimura who described finding rats in her kitchen. She’d called the property manager six times before anyone came to put out traps.

Alan asked her if she’d kept her apartment clean and she got defensive. He implied the rats might be her fault.

I interrupted.

“Mr. Whitmore is there evidence that Ms. Kimura’s housekeeping caused the rat infestation?”

Alan paused.

“No your honor but her apartment condition could be a contributing factor.”

“Do you have evidence of that?”

“Not at this time.”

“Then let’s focus on questions supported by evidence.”

The morning continued with testimony from six more tenants, each describing similar patterns: broken things staying broken, complaints ignored, and retaliation threats when anyone pushed back. Allan systematically tried to undermine their credibility, asking about late rent payments, about other tenant complaints, and about whether they’d followed proper procedures for reporting issues.

By noon I’d heard enough to understand the pattern clearly. This wasn’t about a few isolated maintenance issues; it was about systematic neglect enabled by a property manager who understood that elderly tenants on fixed incomes had no leverage and nowhere else to go.

We broke for lunch and I returned to my chambers to find a message that the chief judge wanted to see me. I walked to her office and Judge Katherine Rivera looked up from her desk with a concerned expression.

“Michael I heard about the motion for recusal in your housing case. Alan Whitmore called me during the break. He’s concerned about the appearance of impropriety given your personal connection to one of the plaintiffs.”

I sat down.

“He’s right that I have a connection. My mother lives in that building and is one of the tenants. I witnessed the property manager’s behavior firsthand.”

Katherine frowned.

“Then you should have recused yourself immediately. Why didn’t you?”

“Because I don’t think these tenants will get a fair hearing with another judge. Not because other judges are corrupt but because this property manager has learned how to work the system. He has documentation and lawyers and knows all the right procedures. The tenants have a young legal aid attorney and their own testimony. I’ve seen a dozen cases exactly like this where the landlord wins on technicalities.”

Katherine was quiet for a moment.