Did Engoron Violate Judicial Rules?

by Sharon Rondeau

(May 8, 2024) — Early Wednesday evening, Trump legal spokeswoman Alina Habba reposted on TruthSocial a link to a New York NBC station reporting on an alleged possible ex parte communication between New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron and a local attorney regarding the civil-fraud case against the 45th president.

As the result of a “non-jury trial” this past winter, Engoron ruled the Trump Organization, Trump personally, his two sons and two company officers submitted “false financial statements” to accountants and bankers to obtain more favorable loan terms.

Despite having received no complaints from the banks allegedly victimized, Engoron imposed a $355 million fine, which accrued interest while Trump’s legal team awaited an appeal, bringing it to an unprecedented $454 million.

The New York appellate court later reduced the amount, required in the form of a bond, to $175 million.

Wednesday’s NBC New York article reported that Atty. Adam Leitman Bailey said he approached Engoron on February 16, 2024 to provide “advice” as to how he should apply the New York State law invoked to bring the Trump case to court.

Engoron’s ruling was due that day.

In response to the allegation, a court spokesman reportedly claimed that “No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person. The decision Justice Engoron issued February 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual.”

The statement was attributed to an Al Baker of the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA), described as “the administrative arm of the court system, under the direction of the Chief Administrative Judge.” 

According to the report, “Baker, the court spokesman, did not reply when asked whether the judge had engaged with Bailey or asked questions.”

Part 100 of New York’s “Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge” expresses the standards of “Judicial Conduct” as “rules of reason.” “They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law and in the context of all relevant circumstances,” the Preamble states. “The rules are to be construed so as not to impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.”

From 100.1 to 100.5, the Rules require judges to:

uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;

avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities;

perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently;

so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations;

refrain from inappropriate political activity.

Section 100.6 explains to whom the Rules apply within the scope of the court system, including candidates for judicial office.

“The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct will now consider whether the rules of judicial conduct were violated in this instance, according to sources familiar with the matter,” the report further states.

The article disclosed that in 2019 Bailey’s law license was suspended for a four-month period for what was perceived as two occurrences of professional misconduct.

Bailey made the claim involving Engoron twice on local television, the article reported, and previously sued one of Trump’s companies, succeeding in securing a return of “most of” his clients’ money in a real-estate matter.