Judge Arthur Engoron of New York is currently being investigated for allegedly collaborating with a lawyer on a case involving President Donald Trump.
A real estate attorney from New York has stated that he worked together with Engoron on the Trump case. The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is looking into the allegations made by Attorney Adam Leitman Bailey.
Bailey revealed to WNBC-TV that he had a private conversation with Engoron at the courthouse three weeks prior to the judge imposing a $454 million fine on Trump for supposedly inflating his asset values.
It is against the rules for New York judges to take into account external opinions while handling a case. Despite this, Bailey claimed that he had extensive discussions with the judge regarding the legal matters.
“I actually had the ability to speak to him three weeks ago,” Bailey said mere hours before the judge issued his ruling.
“I saw him in the corner [at the courthouse], and I told my client, ‘I need to go,’” he stated.
“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 attorney continued.
Bailey claimed to be familiar with Engoron after having numerous interactions with him during his time of employment.
“He had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases. We went over it,” the attorney said.
He stated that he had “clarified to” Engoron that ruling against Trump would have extensive consequences beyond just harming the former president, such as negatively impacting New York’s economy.
If Trump were compelled to pay a substantial penalty and close down his business, it would create apprehension among other companies who could potentially be targeted without any actual damages or victims, similar to this case. Trump’s legal team presented the same arguments, which Engoron disregarded in his decision.
During a subsequent interview with WNBC, Bailey slightly retracted his statements, stating that they “didn’t even mention the word ‘Donald Trump’” during their discussion. Nevertheless, the attorney acknowledged that it was clearly understood what they were conversing about.
“Well, obviously, we weren’t talking about the Mets,” Bailey said.
According to the New York State Rules of Judicial Conduct, “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.”
Engoron could seek guidance from an impartial expert, but all parties involved in the case must be notified and given an opportunity to provide a response. Al Baker, a representative from the state’s Office of Court Administration, refuted any claims that the judge had violated these regulations.
“The decision Justice Engoron issued February 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual,” Baker said.
