NBC's New York station is reporting that an investigation is being launched by New York State's judicial overview body into the judge who handled Trump's $464 million dollar civil fraud case.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/new-york-lawyer-tried-advise-judge-trump-trial-civil-fraud/5395676/"I actually had the ability to speak to him three weeks ago," Bailey said, during an on-camera interview with NBC New York on Feb. 16, the day the judge's decision was due. "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."
Bailey, who said he is no fan of Trump, was not involved in the civil case and is not connected to any of the four separate criminal cases against the former president. He said he knows the judge from having appeared before him as a litigant "hundreds of times."
Bailey said he "explained to him" that a fraud statute at issue in the case was not intended to be used to shut down a major company, especially in a case without clear victims. He said such a ruling would hurt New York's economy. Engoron had rejected a similar argument raised by the Trump team in court.
It seems odd that a lawyer would feel comfortable abandoning his own client, making a bee-line to a judge handling a case attracting worldwide attention in the middle of a break IN THE COURTHOUSE and begin chatting that judge up at length about the case or general principles of law related to the case. On one hand, this almost seems like a case of intentional interference on the part of that lawyer. On one hand, he states he is NOT a fan of Trump but he claims the points he made with Engoron argued against the suitability of the laws being cited as grounds for fraud.
On the other hand, it raises a different question about the entire justice system and expectations people seem to have about some magic bubble of isolation that must be maintained around seemingly anyone involved in the case except the defendant. In the particular scenarios of the various Trump cases, it would seem participants on the prosecution side would have the sense to strenuously avoid ANY public or private contact with anyone appearing to buttonhole them about the charges, the evidence and underlying legal theories of the case. The description of the interaction in NBC's report comes solely from the lawyer so the exact nature of this conversation is not clear. Did Engoron actively try to shush the lawyer offering unsolicited advice on the legal merits of anti-fraud laws? Did Engoron sit quietly as if to humor the lawyer while hoping his awkward silence would tell the man "go away"? Or did Engoron actively engage in the conversation, ask questions and offer counter-opinions? The lawyer claimed to NBC that Engoron DID engage in the conversation. "He had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases. We went over it."
This event is even more suspicious because the same lawyer stated to NBC he didn't see anything wrong with the conversation. Okay, if the lawyer saw nothing wrong with the conversation or its content, then why did the lawyer seek out NBC and mention the conversation? Or did NBC happen to encounter him in the courthouse the day of the decision and ask him for a reaction to the looming decision? The lawyer, Adam Bailey, operates a high profile law firm in New York focused on real-estate but has one major blot on his record. Per Wikipedia,
On May 3, 2019, Bailey was suspended from practicing law for a four-month term. The suspension was imposed for undignified conduct (including telling a party suing Bailey's client that he "should commit suicide") and for threatening criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Maybe Bailey was defending the use of real estate evaluation techniques HIS clients use that were the focus of the Trump fraud case. Or was he purposely attempting to "tamper" with the sitting judge in a high profile case with the goal of coming back later and attempting to blow up the case with an ethics charge?
Regardless of Bailey's motives, this points to a larger problem with expectations of the judicial process for prosecutors, defendants, judges, witnesses and juries. The idea that all parties to a case must exist in some intellectual hermetically sealed bubble during the course of a trial does not seem practical in the modern era. On the other hand, that's not what New York rules require of judges and lawyers. New York rules (like most other states, one presumes) only require that ex parte discussions a judge might have be disclosed to both legal teams. Rules are rules. Why did Engoron not go above and beyond to avoid any APPEARANCE of interference by disclosing this conversation? At this point, anyone operating in any legal capacity in relation to ANY of Trump's legal cases HAS to assume a key focus of his strategy might involve intentional sabatoge of the "optics" of the prosecutors or judges involved to use as grounds for dismissal, a change in judge, a change in venue, or a mis-trial to delay an eventual verdict.
In this case, Engoron's conduct may not have been unethical but it certainly was STUPID.
WTH
