SAN DIEGO -- When Frank Rogozienski's then-wife Shirley filed for divorce in 1997, both parties agreed to bring in attorney James Allen as a temporary judge to oversee the case.

The case dragged on for years and Rogozienski, (pictured, left), said a string of rulings bothered him. His prenuptial agreement was rendered powerless, giving his wife half his shares of stocks, valued at more than $20 million.

He was ordered to pay his wife's court fees with little explanation.

But the strangest twist, he said, came when Allen was asked for a routine disclosure of any conflicts of interest. Rogozienski, an attorney himself, said Allen brushed it aside.

"Never in my experience has any judge said, 'I'm not going to make a disclosure,'" Rogozienski said.

Rogozienski started to do some digging, beginning with an Internet search.

The trail led to a time share at Warner Springs Ranch in east San Diego County. Rogozienski believed he uncovered too much sharing and some disturbing timing.

Video

Did Man Get Fair Day In Court?

He found deeds on the public record that showed Allen received a gift, a partial stake in a time share at the Warner Springs Ranch. He received the gift from a friend, Michael Love, eight months before he ruled on the Rogozienski case.

"I felt like I was making a mistake. This couldn't be," Rogozienski said.

Rogozienski knew Love very well because he was his ex-wife's main lawyer. The discovery incensed him.

"The judge has to be impartial. Judges don't take gifts from anyone who is involved in the case," Rogozienski exclaimed.

But Love said it was hardly a gift. In a written statement, Love told 10News because of the time share's "financial difficulties," the value of the stake, once worth thousands, had sunk so much he was "unable to find a buyer."

Rogozienski disputed the numbers, valuing the stake at several thousand dollars.

After his discoveries, Rogozienski again asked Allen if there were any conflicts of interest? This time, Allen disqualified himself.

In his official statement he admitted he was "well-acquainted" with Love and calls the deed transfer the result of a "casual conversation." He added that there was no "favoritism."

In the end, legal experts said that may not matter. Even the appearance of favoritism endangers the entire legal system.

"Essentially, we want judges who will go up there and call balls and strikes as they see them," civil litigator Roger Perkins said.

Rogozienski filed an appeal for a new trial. He said he knows it might cost him millions more, but said it is worth the risk.

"I believe everyone is entitled to a fair and impartial trial. I don't believe it was a fair and impartial trial in this case," Rogozienski said.

A decision on the appeal is expected soon. 10News asked Allen for a comment but his lawyers said it is against legal rules for a judge to comment on a case under appeal. They also declined to comment on his behalf.