Left: Judge Arthur F. Engoron at the New York State Supreme Court on October 5th, 2023. (Meir Chaimowitz/NurPhoto via AP); Right: Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media at a Washington hotel, Jan. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
The judge who oversaw Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial has signed off on a request to subpoena a New York City real estate attorney over his comments about an ex parte conversation about the case.
According to attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, he and New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron discussed the case at length during a hallway chat three weeks before the court issued a blockbuster ruling that found Trump as well as other individuals and entities liable to the tune of a combined $364 million. Inclusive of interest, Trump himself owes $454 million under the ruling.
Bailey, a legal analyst, spoke with Manhattan-based NBC flagship station WNBC on Feb. 16, the same day the court issued its judgment. Trump had, well before the trial, been found liable on the state’s motions for summary judgment. In May, those allegations came to light along with news that Engoron was under investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct over the discussion.
Trump’s attorneys seized on the media firestorm and ethics investigation into what, exactly, Bailey and Engoron discussed.
In late June, the defense moved to have Engoron recused from the case — which Trump is appealing. At the same time, the defense issued a broad subpoena request for documents in Bailey’s possession.
Even later in June, Bailey’s own attorney moved for a broad kibosh on the Trump team effort with a motion to quash the subpoena.
Trump had requested “any pattern of communication” between the real estate lawyer and the court. Bailey’s response suggested this broad request proved the subpoena was just a “fishing expedition.”
Engoron found both sides asked for too much.
The judge adopted Bailey’s marine metaphor and issued a denial over the broad subpoena request Trump’s attorneys made.
“As Mr. Bailey and his firm have appeared before this Court often, the request is unduly burdensome, as it would subject to disclosure all communications on wholly unrelated matters,” the order reads. “Accordingly, this Court will not so-order the subpoena as issued, as it is framed in the most general terms and unquestionably would permit an improper wholesale fishing expedition.”
Engoron also mocked the broad nature of the subpoena by describing the request’s timeline as “from the beginning of time until now.”
The judge handed the former president a win as well. He also called out the real estate attorney for having “boasted” about the claims he made and essentially found Bailey brought it all on himself.
“However, the subpoena is not wholly without merit,” Engoron ruled. “Mr. Bailey has opened the door by making his extraordinary claims to the media, in which he, by his own admission, stated that he attempted to offer unsolicited legal advice to this Court. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to any communications or documents in Mr. Bailey’s possession that involve, discuss, or in any way refer to ‘the Action’ as defined in the subpoena.”
Ultimately, the judge granted the motion to quash the subpoena in part and denied it in part. Bailey now has seven days to provide Trump’s team with the documents they requested.
Engoron did not rule on the broader recusal motion.
The overarching motion notes the investigation into the Bailey discussion. This inquiry commenced after the judge issued a statement, through a spokesperson, insisting their talk was not untoward.
“Where, as here, this Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under the circumstances, it must recuse,” Trump’s motion reads.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
