According to NBC New York, Judge Arthur Engoron, who presided over the trial of former President Donald Trump for civil fraud, is currently the subject of an inquiry after accepting unsolicited advice from a renowned New York real estate lawyer.

In addition to fining the former president $454 million for fraudulently inflating his assets, the infamous left-wing judge also found two of Trump’s sons, his business acquaintances, and the Trump Organization guilty.

Last week, real estate lawyer Adam Leitman Bailey acknowledged to NBC that, in violation of the law, he provided Engoron with unsolicited counsel three weeks before the latter reached a judgment about the matter.

On February 16, the day of Engoron’s announcement, Bailey informed reporters, “I actually had the capacity to speak to him three weeks ago.”

“I informed my client that I had to go when I spotted him on the corner [outside the courtroom]. And I approached, and we struck up a conversation. I wanted to tell him what I believed and why. I sincerely hope he gets it right.

The state’s judicial monitoring authority, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is currently looking into the situation, according to NBC New York.

The New York Rules of Judicial Conduct provide that “a judge shall not initiate, permit, or examine ex parte communications, or evaluate other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their counsel.”

Nonetheless, there is a provision in the regulations that permits consulting with an impartial expert.

“If the judge notifies the parties and gives them a reasonable amount of time to react, the judge may seek the counsel of a disinterested expert on the law pertaining to a court proceeding.”

According to the court’s spokesperson, Engoron refuted any inappropriate remarks he may have made to Bailey, claiming that the exchange had “wholly uninfluenced” his decision.

“Justice Engoron’s judgment from February 16 was his own, well thought through, and completely unaffected by this person,” the spokesperson continued.

Bailey told NBC that the judge should have ruled as the Trump Organization will suffer economic consequences from hefty penalties.

The lawyer claimed to have told Engoron that the anti-fraud statute that was used against Trump was not intended to be used to shut down a large corporation, especially in a situation where there were no victims.

Engoron agreed with Democratic Attorney General of New York Letitia James’ decision that Trump inflated his properties in order to qualify for advantageous loans, which had an impact on the market.

Bailey, who asserts that he is not a Trump supporter, stated that he was unrelated to any of the cases brought against the former president. However, Bailey has appeared before Engoron “hundreds of times” in court, and the judge “had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases” in their private conversations.

Bailey told NBC that, since they had only discussed the law, none of them had broken any laws.

Bailey remarked, “Well, obviously we were not talking about the Mets,” and “we did not even say the phrase Donald Trump.”

The former president’s lawyer, Christopher Kise, told NBC New York that the code does not allow for justifications like “well, this was a brief chat” or “well, it did not really influence me.”The code is quite clear.

Author: Scott Dowdy