Attorney Alexander C. Wharton in Hot Water: Faces Scrutiny as Credibility Is Challenged; Motion Filed to Disqualify Special Master Over Undisclosed Ties and Bias Allegations
By: Public Affairs Staff on January 2, 2025
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the appearance of bias, even without actual bias, is grounds for disqualification.
In a significant legal battle within the Shelby County Chancery Court, plaintiff Rev. Gerald Kiner has initiated a seemingly warranted move to disqualify Special Master Alexander C. Wharton from a high-profile public records case against the Shelby County Government Public Records Department where Alexander Wharton was appointed by Honorable Judge James R Newsom to investigate allegations of misconduct by Shelby County Government attorneys. The core of Kiner’s contention lies in undisclosed familial ties between Wharton and former Mayor A C Wharton, Jr., which, Kiner asserts, has skewed the special master’s impartiality in a case deeply intertwined with the county’s administrative framework.
Kiner’s formal motion alleges that Alexander Wharton’s ability to remain neutral has been compromised by his connection to a prominent political figure whose influence once permeated the very offices now in litigation. This potential conflict is exacerbated by the fact that the defense attorneys are employees of a government once led by Wharton’s father, presenting a classic scenario that ethics counselors warn could lead to biased judicial outcomes.
The motion meticulously details several critical flaws in Wharton’s handling of the case, pointing out that his report seems to downplay serious legal and ethical issues raised by the plaintiff. Kiner criticizes Wharton’s misplaced metaphorical dismissal of “prematurely declaring a winner in a game,” a comparison that Kiner argues belittles the gravity of the accusations against the county’s counsel.
Kiner contends serious ethical violations are not a game. According to Kiner, the metaphor used by the Special Master in his report that the plaintiff was prematurely “asking this Court and Special Master to declare him the winner of the game before the first quarter has ended” trivializes the legitimate concerns raised regarding procedural fairness and the proper administration of justice. Responding to Wharton’s misplaced metaphor “declare him the winner of the game before the first quarter has ended”, Kiner stated in his motion to disqualify Wharton, “The legal violations asserted by Plaintiff regarding the Defendant’s counsel’s unethical conduct are well-documented and merit careful consideration, regardless of the stage of litigation.”
Further compounding these concerns are allegations of mischaracterized plaintiff requests, overlooked manipulations of factual contentions, and a lenient approach towards documented misconduct by defense attorneys. These points of contention suggest possible violations by Attorney Wharton of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 1.7, which mandates clear disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest to safeguard impartiality in legal proceedings.
Kiner’s plea for transparency and ethical adherence strikes at the heart of judicial integrity, questioning whether Wharton’s undisclosed familial relationships represent a “serious ethical lapse” that has jeopardized the fairness of the proceedings. The filing calls for a reevaluation of Wharton’s role and the legal analyses he has presented, urging the court to address these issues with the seriousness they warrant.
Drawing on Tennessee and federal legal precedents that underscore the necessity of impartiality, such as State v. Black and Liteky v. United States, Kiner’s motion argues that even the appearance of bias, even without actual bias, is grounds for disqualification.
The developments in the Shelby County Chancery Court not only underscore the complexities of legal ethics and procedural fairness but also set the stage for potentially significant ramifications for the public’s trust in the judicial system. As this case progresses, the decision on Wharton’s disqualification could have profound implications beyond the courtroom, shaping future protocols on conflict of interest and transparency within the Tennessee judiciary.
About Post Author
