Iβm torn on the Gorsuch deal. It was well below the original asking price, but I havenβt seen anything about a fair market value. As long as it wasnβt well above FMV, itβs possible that it was an entirely innocent deal and he had no reason to think he needed to disclose additional information (or even ask his partners about the buyer). Also, it says he has sided with the buyerβs firm in 8 out of 12 cases. Has there been any discussion of those cases? Did his decisions in each generally follow his pattern or was he making arguments that were outside of his usual line of reasoning? In the 4 that he ruled against them, was it a decisive loss? Or did he still concede to some of their positions? If they all track with his history, then I think that is pretty conclusive evidence he wasnβt swayed by the sale (or that he even knew there was an ethical issue).
All that being said, I agree there should be stricter rules. They should be required to know everything about where there income derives from, and they should be required to disclose it in detail. Maybe even flag certain things as potential conflicts of interest to make sure everyone sees it. Had that been done, maybe the sale never happens. But if it did, parties on the other side from that firm could have raised it as a potential reason for recusal, and there wouldnβt be a lick of the appearance of impropriety.