The question of whether judges are biased in favor of campaign contributors was the meat of a Los Angeles Times series this summer. Now a Las Vegas attorney has made the allegation on the record, which could make him a pariah in local courthouses.

Insurance defense attorney Phillip Emerson asked for a new trial based partly on his allegations that District Judge Tim Williams was biased against him and favored personal injury attorney Robert Vannah because Vannah was one of the judge's campaign contributors.

While "pay to play" was one of the points of the Times series last summer, this could be the first time a lawyer alleged in court documents that campaign contributions influenced a judge. While many might think it, few attorneys are willing to say it on the record.

Vannah represents Rene Aguilar in the personal injury case and in August won a $6.6 million jury verdict for his injured client.

Emerson represents Rose Madruga, the driver who hit Aguilar's vehicle. She was heading north on Durango Drive trying to turn left. Aguilar was heading south, and she turned into him.

Emerson argued that when Williams campaigned in 2004, $13,500 came from Vannah and people tied to this case, including three doctors who testified and consultant Howard Awand. The FBI as part of an investigation into whether doctors and lawyers are in collusion to run up medical costs for higher insurance settlements is scrutinizing Awand.

Emerson said if the judge had disclosed those contributions, he would have used a challenge to remove Williams and ask for another judge to hear the case.

Emerson said the judge had an obligation to disclose his contributions. Nevada's campaign contribution laws don't require such disclosures, however, because theoretically those campaign donors already are reported when a judge files campaign contribution forms.

Emerson also said that during the jury trial, 95 percent of the time when Vannah objected, Williams upheld him, while between 90 and 95 percent of the time the judge overruled his own objections.

Emerson contended these rulings show the judge's bias toward the side that helped him financially in his race.

Vannah argued in court documents that Emerson was just a "sore loser" whose objections frequently were without merit. Vannah said Emerson's motion to dismiss was "based entirely upon speculation, conjecture, hyperbole, exaggeration, misrepresentation and sinister and unwarranted attacks."

Despite the popular belief that campaign contributions are little more than bribes, in a state where judges run for election, they must have campaign contributions to finance their races.

Voters seem to want it both ways. They don't want judges appointed because they want to be able to vote them in and vote them out. Yet they feel uneasy about judicial candidates asking for money, and most of the time the judges are asking the lawyers who appear before them.

The Supreme Court has said judges don't have to remove themselves from cases because of campaign contributions.

From what Supreme Court spokesman Bill Gang said, while certain judicial reforms are expected to be recommended, asking judges to disclose in court their contributions from attorneys and witnesses is not one of them.

Anyone with Internet access is free to check out the reports on the secretary of state's Web page, even if searching them for particular names is a painstaking process.

It's still going to be the attorney's job to check out the judge's contributions, and more and more attorneys are doing exactly that.

Chief Justice Robert Rose said in a statement recently that judges tend to only disclose when they think they are going to disqualify themselves from a case.

Rose said judges should scrupulously disclose information that might be considered relevant, even if they're not going to disqualify themselves.

It's good advice, even if he doesn't intend it to apply to campaign contributions.

Williams recently dismissed Emerson's motion for a new trial (what judge is going to admit to being biased for any reason?), and Emerson said he would appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Because Supreme Court justices are also vulnerable to claims that they favor contributors over noncontributors, Emerson is going to have to prove blatant bias by the judge.

Meanwhile, Emerson probably won't be arguing future cases in front of Judge Williams. Charging judges with bias is a risky move for any attorney.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0275.