Judge Arthur Engoron, who presided over the civil fraud trial of President Donald Trump, is currently under investigation for accepting unsolicited advice from a well-known New York real estate lawyer.
In addition to imposing a $454 million fine on the former president for fraudulently inflating his assets, the judge, who has been a subject of controversy due to his left-wing views, also found two of Trump’s sons, his business associates, and the Trump Organization guilty.
Recently, real estate lawyer Adam Leitman Bailey admitted to NBC that he had provided Engoron with unsolicited advice three weeks prior to the judge’s decision in the case, which is a violation of the law, as reported by NBC New York.
“I actually had the ability to speak to him three weeks ago. I saw him in the corner [near 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 told reporters.
The matter is currently under investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which serves as the state’s regulatory authority for the judiciary.
“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,” according to the New York State Rules of Judicial Conduct.
🚨Well what do we have here…🚨Attorney says he gave Trump trial judge unsolicited advice during civil fraud case – NBC New York https://t.co/omBPYGcnpL
— Alina Habba (@AlinaHabba) May 8, 2024
Nevertheless, there is an exemption in the regulations for obtaining guidance from an impartial specialist.
“A judge may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge if the judge gives notice to the parties …and affords the parties reasonable opportunity to respond,” the report said.
Engoron refuted any allegations of making inappropriate remarks to Bailey via the court’s representative and asserted that his ultimate decision was completely unaffected by the discussion.
“The decision Justice Engoron issued February 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual,” the spokesman added.
Bailey informed NBC that he had advised Engoron that the anti-fraud statute used against Trump was not meant to be applied to close down a large corporation, particularly in a scenario where there were no victims.
Engoron concurred with the decision of New York’s Democratic Attorney General Letitia James that Trump had inflated the value of his properties to qualify for favorable loans, impacting the market. Despite claiming not to support Trump, Bailey mentioned that he had no involvement in any cases against the former president.
Nevertheless, Bailey disclosed that he had appeared before Engoron numerous times in court, and the judge had raised several inquiries about specific cases during their private discussions.
Bailey clarified to NBC that as their conversations solely revolved around the law, no laws were violated by either party.
