The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is currently investigating a conversation that took place between the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case and a lawyer seeking to discuss the details of the case, as reported by NBC New York.
Attorney Adam Bailey, a prominent real estate lawyer who had previously faced a suspension of his law license, shared with the station that he personally reached out to Judge Arthur Engoron with unsolicited advice regarding the case three weeks prior to Engoron’s decision to penalize Trump with a hefty $454 million.
“I noticed him standing in the corner at the courthouse, and without hesitation, I felt compelled to approach him,” Bailey shared with the outlet. “I excused myself from my client’s side and made my way over to him. We engaged in a conversation where I expressed my thoughts and reasons behind my stance. It was important for me to ensure that he fully grasped the significance of the matter at hand. I genuinely hope that he understands and makes the right decision.”
Bailey, who openly admitted that he is not a fan of Trump, shared that he had a close familiarity with Engoron as they had crossed paths in court numerous times. Bailey took it upon himself to convey to Engoron that using the law as a tool to bring a large-scale company to a halt would be an inappropriate course of action.
Bailey mentioned that they had thoroughly discussed various cases, as he had numerous inquiries.
Bailey defended his stance, stating that he believed the judge had not committed any wrongdoing.
“We didn’t even mention Donald Trump,” Bailey said, but “obviously, we weren’t discussing the Mets.”
According to a court spokesperson, the judge stated that he was not influenced by Bailey.
According to court spokesman Al Baker, there were no ex parte conversations between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or anyone else regarding this matter. The decision issued by Justice Engoron on February 16 was made independently, after careful consideration, and without any influence from this individual.
NBC’s questions about whether Engoron engaged with Bailey or asked questions were left unanswered by Baker.
Judges in New York are not allowed to take into account any communications that occur outside the presence of the parties involved in a case. However, there is an exception to this rule, which permits judges to seek the guidance of an impartial expert. In such cases, the judge is required to inform all parties involved in the case and provide them with an opportunity to respond.
The state commission is currently investigating whether any rules were breached in this particular case.
According to Trump attorney Chris Kise, the code does not make any exceptions for scenarios like “well, this was a small conversation” or “well, it didn’t really impact me” or “well, this wasn’t something that I, the judge, found significant.” Kise emphasizes that the code is very clear and does not allow for such justifications.
According to retired New York appellate judge Alan Scheinkman, if Engoron had engaged in any meaningful conversation regarding the case, it should be made known to the public.
During a recorded TV interview, the lawyer made these statements unprompted, which should raise serious concerns, according to the individual. They find Bailey’s allegation to be very troubling.
According to Professor Bruce Green, the director of Fordham Law School’s Center for Law and Ethics, discussing a law in the abstract does not violate any ethics rules.
According to Green, judges are not required to live in isolation. He believes that the permissibility or impermissibility of a judge’s hallway conversation with a lawyer depends on the nature of the conversation.
Read More:
- Woman accused of leaving 3-year-old alone at home to go gambling
- Two Buffalo restaurants were ‘closed till further notice’ following the death of their co-owner