A state Supreme Court Justice who has been at the center of numerous ethics complaints and allegations has ruled against a client of a law firm that did not charge him for legal work when attorneys represented him before the Supreme Court on previous ethics charges.

Justice Michael Gableman, who sided with the three other justices on the case, authored a majority opinion against a client of the law firm Michael Best & Friedrich, reversing a decision in the lower courts in a case relating to a cell phone tower builder and a cell phone wireless provider. The opinion said the court should not have made another company owned by the cell phone tower builder testify in court.

Gableman has come under fire after the same law firm represented him before the Supreme Court and did not charge him any legal fees, which is a violation of the Wisconsin judicial ethics code.

Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said the organization filed an ethics complaint with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission against Gableman in December 2011.

Rick Esenberg, founder, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, said people have been accusing Gableman of being biased toward Michael Best clients in his court decisions.

“This case demonstrates there’s no evidence he’s been biased for clients represented by Michael Best,” Esenberg said.

He said the question of recusal is not quite the same as bias. Esenberg said two issues are at stake over whether Gableman should have recused himself for the case, one dealing with whether it would be improper for the justice to oversee the case if he had an obligation with the law firm.

The other issue has to do with the court being a Supreme Court, Esenberg said. He said the High Court is not only a law-making body, but also the highest court in Wisconsin. If Gableman recused himself from court cases, he would leave the court with six judges, which could result in ties on rulings.

“I think recusal is different in a lower trial court when you can give it to somebody else down the hallway,” Esenberg said.

However, McCabe said Gableman should have recused himself from cases with the Michael Best law firm because judges cannot receive free gifts under the state judicial code.

He added if they do receive these gifts they cannot keep it a secret and cannot preside over a case with the client.

“Regardless of how he ruled, he shouldn’t have participated,” McCabe said. “He’s actually been involved in a number of additional cases with Michael Best where he has not recused himself. He was not following state judicial ethics rules when he did this.”

Gableman was charged with judicial misconduct because of an ad campaign when he was running for Supreme Court that made fictitious claims against his opponent.

The Michael Best law firm represented Gableman in the case, which ended in 3-3 tie on the court after Gableman recused himself. Later, it came out the law firm did not charge Gableman for its services.

McCabe said their complaint is still pending with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.