Real Estate Commission Lawsuits | Pending State & Federal Complaints Alleging Misconduct By Judge Stephen Bough And Attorney Michael Ketchmark

Las Vegas Real Estate Commision Lawsuit

Chief Judge Beth Phillips
Charles Evans Whittaker U.S. Courthouse
400 E. 9th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Sent via Certified Mail

Dear Honorable Judge Phillips,

I am writing to express my concern about the recent trend in judicial decisions in the Western District of Missouri, especially in the context of real estate transactions. This district’s litigation has substantial implications for the U.S. real estate market, valued at $45.3 trillion. Moreover, Bloomberg Canada recently published an article on Feb 7th, 2024, titled Real estate commission lawsuit expands across Canada.” “The class action suit, filed in federal court last month, names 72 different regional real estate boards, ten real estate franchisors, and eight real estate brokerages as defendants,” as the case follows a Missouri court decision.”

The impact of the Sitzer/Burnett verdict is significant, leading to numerous regurgitated lawsuits seeking collective damages of $200 billion, potentially trebling to $600 billion+. The following analysis provides context and identifies several flaws and potential deceptions presented to the jury.

Biased Analysis in NAR Case: Expert’s Cherry-Picking and Omission of Key Evidence

As the plaintiff’s primary economic expert, Dr. Schulman exhibited a staggering neglect of professional thoroughness, zeroing in on irrelevant metrics like GDP, corruption index, and commission rates/percentages. This narrow and shallow analysis overlooked vital factors, leading to skewed conclusions that unfortunately swayed the jury with his flawed evaluation of damages.

Standard Of Care | Baseline For Relevant Economic Analysis

Comparable Market Analysis: Economic experts agree that a thorough analysis of foreign markets should incorporate up to 36 considerations, twelve of which are fundamental. In our assessment, Dr. Schulman did not adequately address any of these essential factors.

Dr. Schulman’s global expedition to pinpoint a foreign market that supports the narrative that Missouri agents impose supra-competitive fees emerges as a profoundly flawed international search. Among 194 countries, his failure to discover a legitimate comparable market is a stark indictment of his methodological validity. Essential to any analysis of average commission costs for sellers in varied global markets is the preliminary evaluation of average home values, alongside the critical consideration of currency exchange impacts. His ultimate preference for Australia as a comparative yardstick against Missouri strikes less as a reasonable selection and more as a last-ditch effort, mirroring less a voyage of discovery and more the aftermath of a nautical disaster.

Comprehensive Overview of Transaction Economics

Dr. Schulman’s presentation to the jury egregiously concealed the applicability of foundational economic principles such as “price elasticity of demand and supply,” “welfare economics,” and “transaction cost theory,” thus audaciously concluding these theories are irrelevant when assessing the financial burdens borne by Australian homebuyers and sellers when compared to US consumers. This assertion overlooks the substantial impact that fees, taxes, and other liabilities have on the net proceeds Australian sellers receive.

With Australian homes averaging $760,221 (converted to USD), a standard 3% commission equates to $22,806. Coupled with the average capital gains tax of $52,000 in 2022 and a 4% stamp duty tax adding another $30,408 for sellers buying another property, the total cost of buying and selling in Australia reaches an astonishing $105,214. This figure vastly exceeds the commissions and transactional expenses encountered in Missouri.

At trial, Dr. Schulman’s findings become increasingly deficient. A filing by NAR on 1/8/2024 states, “Plaintiff Jeremy Breit paid about $9,000 to his seller broker when he sold a home during the class period and paid nothing to his buyer broker when he bought a home during that period. In Dr. Schulman’s but-for world, Mr. Breit would have paid about $5,000 to his seller broker and about $10,000 to his buyer broker—leaving him with a total commissions bill of about $6,000 more. Dr. Schulman also admitted that he failed to even attempt to calculate the total commissions that any Plaintiff paid, which is critical to any credible determination of Plaintiffs’ damage amount.”

Australian Transaction Costs Outpace U.S. Despite The Lack of Alleged Fee-Inflating Regulations

Research conducted by the Australian investment bank Jarden has revealed that, over the past twenty years, the costs associated with buying property—including stamp duty, agent commissions, legal fees, and listing fees—have escalated at a pace fivefold that of income growth.

Moreover, the Australian Financial Review published an opinion stating, “Key risks are selling quality properties in areas still on the up and total transaction costs of roughly 8 percent.” Furthermore, With buying costs upwards of 5 percent and selling costs around 3 percent, the simple maths tells us that total transaction costs are 8 percent, not including capital gains tax (CGT). So you would need to make a considerably larger gain to make the trouble you go to, and the risks you expose yourself to, worthwhile,” “A gain of, say, $200,000 on an investment property can expose the seller to a $30,000-45,000 CGT bill. Total selling costs, and then stamp duty and conveyancing on rebuying, could easily top $100,000.”

Australia’s market relevance in comparison to the U.S. falls short.

Commissions v. Fractions | Standard Commission Fallacy

The plaintiff’s economic experts employ a strategy to confuse the jury by suggesting that the terms “commissions” and “percentages” are synonymous. Economists Natalya Delcoure and Norm Miller, cited in all complaints, claim that “Total broker commissions (i.e., the aggregate commission paid to the seller broker and buyer broker) in the areas in which the Covered MLSs operate average between five and six percent,” attempts to blur distinct economic measures within a single paragraph. In reality, a “commission” should be understood as a specific monetary amount, whereas “rates” and “percentages” represent proportional values or fractions.

Affording the consideration of the plaintiffs’ pathetically unacademic financial models, experts still fail as theories applying commission percentages, which vary from 4.78% in Hawaii to 6.67% in West Virginia, result in a significant 33% variance. Claims of price-fixing are absurd and plausibly actionable.

The Internal Revenue Service uses precise financial criteria to determine income and tax obligations. The exclusive reliance on “fractions” to determine income and damages does not align with any logical evaluation, except in cases presided over by Judge Bough in the Western District of Missouri.

Comparable Market Analysis | Missouri

Dr. Schulman’s testimony uncovers an alarmingly limited and self-interested methodology in his analysis. His acknowledged limitation of the Missouri study to “CORPORATE DEFENDANTS” and only four relatively small MLS markets in Missouri — “Heartland MLS, Southern Missouri MLS, Columbia MLS, and MARIS,” covering the period from April 2015 to June 2022 “— represents a significant deficiency. A legitimate analysis aimed at uncovering price-fixing must analyze the entirety of transactions, searching for irregularities across the board rather than narrowly concentrating on “CORPORATE DEFENDANTS.”

Moreover, Dr. Schulman’s assertion of having “SPENT THOUSANDS OF HOURS” examining just a few Missouri MLS markets appears to be an extreme overstatement, either to rationalize excessive billing or indicative of a remarkably inefficient approach to conducting a comprehensive and expedient analysis. This situation casts severe doubts on Dr. Schulman’s professional adequacy and objectives.

Schulman’s Misguided U.S.-Australia Comparison Overlooks Key Auction Differences

Dr. Schulman’s comparison of U.S. and Australian real estate agents, particularly regarding auctions, fails to account for significant systemic differences. Australia’s “as-is” auction framework imposes hefty non-refundable fees on sellers, diminishing buyer protections unlike the stringent due diligence and consumer safeguards mandated for U.S. agents. Auctions while aiming to capture market value, inherently limit buyer competition, presenting strategic disadvantages. The caveat emptor principle, emphasized by Bond University, necessitates thorough buyer due diligence due to potential auction pitfalls, highlighting the auction system’s capacity to disadvantage consumers without careful scrutiny.

Dr. Schulman’s methodology in the Sitzer/Burnett case significantly departs from the rigorous standards of economic analysis he teaches at Texas A&M University. His lectures in Econometrics 461, which stress the importance of analyzing “dollars/actual costs” versus percentages/rates, especially in global oil markets, establish a benchmark for precision. However, remarkably, he abandons these principles in the case, failing to apply the meticulous approach he demands from his students, undermining his credibility and revealing a troubling inconsistency in his professional practice.

Debating Commissions: Unpacking the Buyer-Seller Burden and Industry Disputes

The idea that sellers are unjustly burdened by having to pay the commissions of buyers’ agents is a central argument in many antitrust complaints. However, this assertion is steeped in contention and lacks consensus among industry experts.

The Department of Justice posits that the buyer ultimately bears commission costs, typically incorporated into the property’s sale price. In contrast, other legal experts contend that sellers are adversely affected as these commissions diminish their GROSS proceeds.

Further complicating matters is the stance of the Plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Attorney Michael Ketchmark, who appeared to suggest that home prices may be reduced as a result of litigation during a Housingwire debate on January 26th, 2024. This implies that buyers will reduce offer prices to offset fee adjustments.

In reality, buyers and sellers contribute to transactional costs, as each party aims to meet specific net proceed targets. This mutual contribution underscores the shared interest in achieving favorable financial outcomes within the framework of property transactions.

Adversarial Transaction Fallacy | Stephen Brobeck | Consumer Federation Of America

As a Senior Fellow at The Consumer Federation of America, Stephen Brobeck has become a prominent voice in arguing that the current commission structure in the real estate sector results in up to $50 billion in annual losses for consumers. Nonetheless, inconsistencies in his research findings substantially question Brobeck’s mental faculties.

On January 28th, 2021, Brobeck’s study, “CFA Predicts Impact on Consumers and Real Estate Brokers if Courts Require Uncoupled Commissions,” paradoxically undermines his prior assertions. By acknowledging the embedded nature of fees in mortgage payments as essential for maintaining affordability, Brobeck inadvertently admits that buyers indirectly cover commission costs through the sale price. His assertion that “loan sizes would not change significantly” hints at a market adjustment where buyers might lower their offers to compensate for fees, diluting the argument of substantial financial detriment to any party involved. This appears to align with Ketchmark’s recent and paradoxical statements.

Furthermore, the narrative of sellers unjustly shouldering buyers’ fees, thus lacking any pro-consumer benefit, faces direct opposition from within the industry. A report by Redfin, “Redfin Reports Nearly Half of Home Sellers are Making Concessions to Woo Buyers, underscores the complexities and negotiations inherent in real estate transactions, challenging simplistic assessments of how commissions impact transaction dynamics

Moreover, the dialogue is further complicated by contrasting viewpoints within the expert community. The plaintiff’s expert, a Berkley Research Group member, openly disputes the absence of pro-competitive benefits when sellers contribute to buyers’ fees/costs. This perspective is sharply rebuked by David Eisenstadt, also of Berkeley Research Group and a former senior economist at the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, who strongly advocates for the efficiency of sellers covering the buyer-broker commission at settlement, highlighting a profound discord among experts regarding the economic rationale and implications of commission payments.

The question of whether buyers or sellers should compensate real estate agents is contentious and unlikely to reach a unanimous agreement.

Digital Age Real Estate: Debunking the Myth of “Steering” and Buyer’s Agent Obsolescence Amid MLS Transparency

The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses present a flawed argument, asserting that the role of buyers’ agents has become obsolete in the digital real estate exploration age “AS BUYERS OFTEN SELECT THE HOME THEY ACQUIRE BEFORE CONTACTING AN AGENT.” Their claim falls apart when examining their simultaneous accusation of agents steering buyers toward or away from specific properties. This contradiction is glaringly irrational, undermining the premise that agents wield considerable influence over buyers presumed to have independently pre-selected their properties via online platforms.

On October 28th, 2021, published an article titled “Want to Buy Your First Home? Get Ready to Tour 15 Houses and Make at Least 5 Offers.” The opinion highlights OpenDoor’s findings: “A new report from Opendoor, a residential real estate platform for buyers and sellers, underscores the lengths first-time homebuyers have been going to find a house. The company commissioned a nationally representative survey of 1,000 first-time homebuyers, and, spoiler alert: They’re putting in tons of time and energy. “Buying and selling real estate is very difficult,” Kerry Melcher, Opendoor’s head of real estate, told Money — particularly for first-time buyers, especially during the pandemic.” Moreover, “The homebuying hustle doesn’t stop after refreshing Zillow a bunch of times. Finding a worthwhile listing is merely the first of many steps, which are likely to be laden with disappointment for first-timers. Next comes the logistics of viewing the homes. The average first-time buyer toured 15 properties — virtually or in-person — and 33% of respondents toured 20 or more, according to the report. Rejection shouldn’t only be expected; it’s all but guaranteed. Almost every first-time homebuyer that Opendoor surveyed said they lost out on a property that they were interested in before finally finding their current one — 98% overall and 99% for millennials.”

The capability of consumers to access new listings simply by repeatedly refreshing Zillow underscores the integral role of cohesive, unified Multiple Listing Services (MLS) systems. These systems feed listings to real estate portals, guaranteeing extensive exposure of listings across prominent websites like Zillow,, and Redfin, which cumulatively draw over 109 million visitors each month. This broad accessibility to listings, regardless of the commission rates, fosters transparency that effectively counters the plaintiffs’ unfounded claims.

Clear Cooperation Policy Critique: Questioning the Ethics of ‘Testing the Market’ Practices

The Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP), which mandates listing a property on the MLS within one business day of public marketing, is often criticized by private listing services as an illegitimate trade constraint. These services champion the dubious merits of “Testing the Market” strategies, which could border on illegality. Forbes outlines such tactics, suggesting sellers might initially list their homes on private networks to gauge price interest.

This method allows sellers to adjust pricing in secrecy before officially listing on the MLS, thereby avoiding public records of price changes or initial market presence. This approach not only skews the market by hiding vital information from buyers but also potentially infringes upon fair trade practices by impeding a buyer’s access to complete property histories, directly impacting their negotiating position. Such practices could contravene Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prevents deceptive commercial activities, and state-specific regulations like NRS 645.252, which demands full disclosure of all relevant property details.

Adhering to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Code of Ethics, ethically minded brokerages would avoid these deceptive maneuvers that unequivocally disadvantage potential buyers. Moreover, these same sellers seeking to achieve price premiums by concealing material information from buyers would be immediately subjected to this scheme when buying their subsequent property; thus, there is no benefit to consumers, even if lawful.

These deceptive tactics subject involved parties to substantial civil liabilities.

Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman is often identified as a prolific critic of 6% commissions within the industry narrative. However, Redfin’s practices and a 2022 legal settlement concerning allegations of redlining highlight contradictions in its stance. The company’s admission that economic considerations, rather than neighborhood demographics, guide its service offerings exposes a profit-driven approach that conflicts with its public denunciation of standard commission rates. This is particularly evident in how Redfin navigates markets like Joplin, Missouri, where it opts out of direct service due to economic feasibility, instead referring potential clients to partner agents, including Keller Williams agents, who surrender a sizable portion of their commission as referral fees.
Even while absorbing these referral fees, Keller Williams’ ability to operate in markets deemed unprofitable by Redfin points to a viable business model that contradicts Redfin’s purportedly altruistic criticisms.

Redfin dramatically severed ties with The National Association of Realtors (NAR), suggesting that accusations against certain NAR leaders have reached a tipping point, declaring “enough is enough.” As Redfin positions itself as the new standard-bearer for ethical conduct in the industry, the question arises: should other agents aim to surpass ethical benchmarks per Redfin’s public declarations or Redfin’s less-than-stellar F-Rating from the Better Business Bureau?

On July 15th, 2020, our firm communicated concerns about defective claims to Carol Gilden, attorney at Cohen Milstein. Our critique focused on the potential collateral damage to loan programs, the flawed reliance on “percentages” for citing damages, and the implausible assertion of buyer ignorance. The opinion highlighted Plaintiff Attorney Stewart’s recent transaction, where a benefit was afforded by the existing system, and Mark Petersen, a real estate attorney and principal at Sawbill Companies, which engages in complex real estate deals. Claims of buyer ignorance became untenable.

Our analysis suggests that instead of addressing the validity of these claims, Stewart, Mark Petersen, and Sawbill were removed as counsel and lead plaintiff, thereby circumventing the requirement to testify under oath. This maneuver appears to prevent exposure to perjury charges that could arise from Mark Petersen and Sawbill repeating previously asserted narratives under oath.

Notably, in the Sitzer/Burnett case, both Scott Burnett and Shelley Dreyer, the president-elect of the Missouri Bar, were made aware of Sitzer’s case flaws and are believed to have been dismissed before they could testify.

If a judge intentionally allows avoidance of sworn testimony to avert conflicting narratives or the risk of perjury charges, this act is a severe miscarriage of justice, potentially meriting impeachment proceedings.

Imposing the Per Se Standard: A Crushing Burden on NAR to Forge a Viable Defense

In antitrust law, two main analytical frameworks are used to determine whether a business practice violates competition laws: the per se rule and the rule of reason. The “rule of reason” is a legal standard used to determine the legality of business practices based on their overall impact on competition, considering factors like the purpose of the agreement, its effects, and market context. In contrast, “per se” refers to practices considered inherently illegal, regardless of their actual effect on the market or any justifications, due to their deemed anticompetitive nature.

Judge Bough is believed to be the only Judge to impose the “per se” framework; thus, there is a massive effort to consolidate up to twenty copycat lawsuits to be tried in the Western District of Missouri, with Judge Bough presiding.

Attorney’s Media Strategy Clashes with Ethical Guidelines Amid Misleading Claims in Real Estate Class-Action Suit

Rule 4-3.6 explicitly prohibits attorneys from making public statements that could significantly prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings. However, Attorney Michael Ketchmark has seemingly disregarded this directive, embarking on an extensive media blitz, notably with a Daily Mail article proclaiming, “Realtors face their reckoning: Class-action lawsuit seeks to recover more than $100 BILLION for home sellers who paid overinflated brokers’ fees- after landmark ruling left Missouri residents in-line for up to $20K EACH”.

The mathematics behind Attorney Michael Ketchmark’s claims are fundamentally flawed. Given an estimated 500,000 class members in Missouri and a hypothetical total recovery of $5.35 billion, the actual maximum per person would be closer to $10,000, not the $20,000 touted. Factoring in attorney fees, the realistic figure drops to about $6,000 per class member, starkly contrasting the inflated expectations set by Ketchmark’s public statements.

Moreover, Ketchmark’s public declarations starkly contrast with the outcomes of recent settlements in similar cases involving major real estate firms, which settled for approximately $208 million—a figure meant to benefit up to 38 million consumers when including the Moehrl class. After deducting a 33% legal fee, court costs, and expert witness fees and assuming 60% of the settlement funds go to the class, the actual distribution amounts to a meager $3.26 per class member.

Prospective jurors might perceive involvement in Ketchmark’s scheme leads to a significant financial gain akin to $20,000, which approaches the threshold of improper inducement.

Court Ruling Limits NAR’s Defense Excludes Key Financial Evidence

The severe per se restrictions already challenging the defense were further exacerbated. On September 8th, 2023, the court approved the Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 7, which heavily constrained the National Association of Realtors (NAR) by prohibiting any mention of “offsets” during the trial. This includes a prohibition on discussing the advantages and services provided by buyer-brokers and any reference to the profits or proceeds from the plaintiffs’ sales.

Attorney Michael Ketchmark, seizing on this evidentiary gap, leverages “proceeds” as a cornerstone of his argument, spotlighting Plaintiff Holley Ellis—who engaged in up to nine property transactions—as a victim of exorbitant commission fees. Ketchmark emphasized Ellis’s experience of paying a 6 percent total commission in a recent sale, which purportedly saw the buyer agent’s fee devour over 20 percent of her net equity, resulting in a staggering 40 percent of the sale proceeds going towards commission costs for both agents. Ellis’s statement, “It was a hard pill to swallow that we would walk away with so little,” highlights the stark discrepancy and injustice fostered by the court’s evidentiary restrictions.

Attorney Ketchmark | Matthew Dameron | Financial Contributions | Influence

Attorney Michael Ketchmark’s substantial political contributions in Missouri, directed towards various Political Action Committees (PACs), including Taxpayers Unlimited, and key political figures, including Governor Parson and former Governor Jay Nixon, are noteworthy. Notably, Governor Parson and former Governor Nixon have been responsible for appointing the majority of the current Appellate and Supreme Court justices in Missouri.

Specific to Sitzer/Burrnet. In 2019, Judge Bough’s spouse, Andrea Bough, ran for councilmember office. PACs believed to be funded by Attorney Michael Ketchmark and Plaintiff’s Attorney Matthew Dameron lacked any interest in Bough’s campaign in 2019; however, upon Sitzer/Burnett’s assignment to Judge Bough, seven contributions were made, many in non-election years.

While campaign contributions fuel political operations, Ketchmark’s endorsement seems to deliver unparalleled advantages to select candidates. Renowned as a pivotal figure in local politics, an endorsement from Ketchmark often signals electoral success. Taking the race for the 1st District At-Large as an illustration, Kevin O’Neill, with the support of Taxpayers Unlimited and the Kansas City Firefighters Union, had a significant financial advantage with $146,000 in funds on hand. In stark contrast, the opposition candidate, Ronda Smith, reported a mere $888, hinting at a potential reluctance from her personal network to make substantial donations.

Andrea Bough’s recent campaign reported $54,387 cash on hand, while her challenger reported $1,317.

Finally, we have intelligence that suggests the Sitzer/Burnett jury Forman was Ian Yocum, believed to be related to former Fire Chief John Yocum. Taxpayers Unlimited appears to share an address with IAFF Local 42, which self-describes itself as “Greater Kansas City Fire Fighters Local 42 of the International Association of Fire Fighters represents 14 Bargaining Units within the metropolitan area.”

Senate Confirmation Hearing | Grassley Raises Alarm on Judge Bough’s Political Role

Senator Grassley voiced concerns, highlighting, “The nominee primarily acts as a political operative, not as a devoted advocate for a client or a court officer.”

This concern appears to have come to fruition as an opinion published by Restoration Of America study indicated, “Approximately 90 percent of realtors in the U.S. work as independent contractors; reducing their numbers aligns with the Biden Labor Department’s objective to curb independent contracting, favoring unions supported by Democrats.”

Senator Grassley’s office was recently informed about the critical issues highlighted in this petition, reinforcing the gravity of his previously expressed concerns. Remarkably, this email quickly captured Congressional attention, evidenced by its significant engagement – it was opened 82 times in a matter of hours. It seems highly likely that Congressional hearings on this matter will follow.

Obligations For Judicial Recusal

In Missouri, judges must adhere to both state and federal guidelines for recusal to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain judicial impartiality. Under Missouri Supreme Court rules, judges are mandated to recuse themselves in any situation where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned, including scenarios of personal bias or prejudice towards a party, personal knowledge of disputed facts, or financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Similarly, federal statutes, particularly 28 U.S.C. § 455, stipulate that judges must disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to cases of personal bias, financial interest, or prior involvement as an attorney in the matter at hand. These rules are designed to uphold the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring decisions are made fairly and without bias, safeguarding the principle of justice for all parties involved. Judge Bough should have recused himself.


We introduce a hypothetical: if you were offered a position in the private sector, however, the sole compensation variable presented was 3%, would this be sufficient to understand the total compensation package offered?

If the answer is no, then judgments awarding billions in damages are astonishingly inadequate.

We believe the court’s decisions suggest bias and explicitly demonstrate it, prompting us to call for overturning the Burnett verdict and removing Judge Bough from the Gibson case. This call for action is driven by the need for fairness and justice in legal proceedings, particularly given the significant risk these cases could have on FHA and VA homebuyers’ ability to achieve homeownership; thus, we are expanding this discussion to include relevant Congressional and government agency leadership as we believe the Burnett outcome will harm all constituents which includes current, former and future veterans.

Respectfully submitted,

Anthony James Phillips

• Norman Wong, Acting Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys
• Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
• Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
• Mike Bost, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
• Timothy A. Phillips, Deputy Director, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
• Major General Keith C. Phillips, Director for Operations, Defense Intelligence Agency
• Dean Phillips, United States House Of Representatives, Minnesota
• Luke Phillips is a research assistant for the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
• Richard J. Hipolit, JD, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
• Megan Phillips, President, Missouri Bar

Author Anthony Phillips

Anthony Phillips, co-founder of Luxury Real Estate Advisors, is renowned in the Las Vegas luxury real estate market, providing top-tier services to global clients, including private equity firms. In addition to leading 12 Las Vegas HOA Boards, his performance at premier locations earned him a spot in MGM Resorts International’s Elite Developer Circle. Phillips continually enhances his expertise through Executive Education programs at Cornell University and MIT. He hails from the influential Phillips family of New England and Missouri, known for their varied contributions to law, academia, business, politics, national defense, intelligence, and consumer rights.

Scroll to Top