Left: Judge Arthur F. Engoron poses for a photo in the courtroom for the 4th day of Trump’s civic fraud trial at the New York State Supreme Court on October 5th, 2023. (Photo by Meir Chaimowitz/NurPhoto via AP). Right: Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media at a Washington hotel, Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2024, after attending a hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals at the federal courthouse in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
A hallway chat between a New York City real estate lawyer and the judge who oversaw Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial has reportedly sparked an investigation by the Empire State’s judicial oversight body.
Attorney Adam Leitman Bailey divulged the conversation in a February interview with New York City-based flagship station WNBC. The interview, however, was only reported on this week.
“I don’t think this judge is applying the law properly,” Bailey told the station. “And I’m a big fan of this judge.”
According to Bailey, the conversation occurred three weeks before New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued a blockbuster ruling that found Trump, his associated businesses that operate in New York State under the Trump Organization umbrella, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., and onetime Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg owe a combined $364 million.
“I actually had the ability to speak to him three weeks ago,” Bailey said on Feb. 16, the day the ruling was issued. “I saw him in the corner [at the courthouse] and I told my client, ‘I need to go.’ And I walked over and we started talking … I wanted him to know what I think and why … I really want him to get it right.”
The judge does not dispute the conversation took place — but says there was nothing untoward about the chat at all.
“No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person,” New York State Office of Court Administration spokesperson Al Baker told WNBC. “The decision Justice Engoron issued February 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual.”
In the long-running and far-reaching fraud case, several defendants — including numerous Trump-affiliated companies — were found liable on multiple counts on summary judgment in September 2023.
A bench trial — that is, a trial without a jury — on the extent of liability was held between October and December 2023. Engoron ultimately arrived at a penalty just shy of the $370 million the state had asked for in January. In his 92-page order, the judge opined that the frauds uncovered by New York State Attorney General Letitia James and her team “leap off the page and shock the conscience.”
Bailey told WNBC he told Engoron that a fraud statute used in the case was not meant to shut down a major company — stressing that this interpretation of the law was particularly on point in a case that did not have clearly-defined victims.
Trump sought to impress upon the court that none of the frauds on banks and other financial firms at issue in the case were ever complained about by the defrauded entities themselves — stressing that everyone made money in all of the deals that were investigation. The defense’s argument did not pass muster with Engoron.
In what WNBC has aired of the interview, the content of the described discussion between the real estate lawyer and the nationally-famous judge could be read as arguably vague references to New York law in general. Bailey, for his part, clearly appears to believe the discussion was on point and regarding the Trump fraud case.
“I explained to him my– a small time law for small time cases,” Bailey said. “He had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases. We went over it.”
Bailey, for his part told WNBC he is not a fan of Trump. While the real estate lawyer has been quoted extensively as a legal expert regarding the case, he was not in any way formally involved in the proceedings.
Citing “sources familiar with the matter,” WNBC reported that the incident is being looked at by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
If that reporting is correct, the following New York Court System “Judicial Speech” rule would seemingly apply to the situation:
A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers concerning a pending or impending proceeding, [unless an exception applies].
One of Trump’s attorneys seized on the revelation to criticize the judge.
“The code doesn’t provide an exception for ‘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,’” Christopher Kise told WNBC. “No. The code is very clear.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
