Judge Arthur Engoron ripped for limiting Trump's subpoena of external lawyer over ex-parte conversation

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: The civil fraud case involving former President Donald Trump saw an eyebrow-raising development when a New York judge decided to narrow a subpoena issued to an external lawyer.

The lawyer in question, Adam Leitman Bailey, had provided unsolicited advice about the case while Judge Arthur Engoron’s multimillion-dollar decision was pending.

Judge Arthur Engoran ruling on the subpoena

On Tuesday, Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that the subpoena issued by Donald Trump's legal team to Adam Bailey was excessively broad, characterizing it as an "improper wholesale fishing expedition." He noted that Bailey and his firm frequently appeared before his court, which could result in unrelated conversations being included in the broad request.

However, Judge Engoron acknowledged that the subpoena had some validity. He noted that Bailey's "extraordinary claims to the media" justified Trump's lawyers seeking any communications or documents related to their conversation.

The incident that led to the subpoena occurred on February 16, the day Judge Engoron handed down a judgment of $464 million, plus additional interest, against Trump for altering his net worth for tax and insurance benefits. Bailey told NBC New York that he had approached Judge Engoron weeks earlier to offer unsolicited advice about the case.

Bailey recounted: "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."

Although Bailey later clarified that "the word ‘Donald Trump’" was never mentioned in their conversation, he implied the context was clear, saying, "Well, obviously we weren’t talking about the Mets."

Following Bailey's interview, Trump's attorneys demanded Judge Engoron's recusal from the case, arguing that the judge had improperly discussed it with an outside party. They also requested “any pattern of communication” between Bailey and the court. 

Trump's legal team, represented by Alina Habba and Clifford Robert, wrote in a 24-page recusal motion: "Allegations have surfaced revealing this Court may have engaged in actions fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities attendant to donning the black robe and sitting in judgment."

A spokesperson for the court maintained that Judge Engoron's decision in Trump's case was "his alone, was deeply considered and was wholly uninfluenced" by Bailey.

Bailey claimed his remarks to NBC New York were "off the record" and stated he only discussed Judge Engoron's September Summary Judgment decision, which found Trump and his co-defendants liable for fraud.

He told The Hill, "I did not think that speaking to Judge Engoron about my own personal views of his already published decision was wrong in any way. I was tricked, I was duped and I’m devastated that any of this is happening, it’s just wrong."

Bailey expressed regret that Judge Engoron, who is retiring soon, still has to deal with the repercussions. “I am devastated and I am hurt that even though Judge Engoron is retiring very soon that he still has to deal with this, because of a statement I gave off the record," he said.

The conversation between Bailey and Engoron prompted a state judicial conduct investigation in May.

Alina Habba, representing Trump, emphasized the seriousness of the matter: "The New York Code of Judicial Conduct exists to ensure that litigants are afforded a fair and impartial trial. Justice Engoron’s communications with Attorney Adam Leitman Bailey regarding the merits of this case, however, directly violate that code and demonstrate that Judge Engoron cannot serve as a fair arbiter."

Habba insisted that Judge Engoron should recuse himself immediately. Despite the controversy, Judge Engoron directed Bailey to provide any responsive documents to Trump's attorneys within one week.

Judge Arthur Engoron and Adam Bailey face backlash following subpoena

Readers on Yahoo! News offered their two cents after it emerged that the judge had narrowed the subpoena issued to Adam Bailey.

"Mr. Bailey really hurt Justice Engoron. Why would he discuss the case ex-parte with the judge when he should know as an experienced attorney licensed in the State of New York you just don't do things like that?" one wrote.

"Ex-parte communications between a presiding judge and any outside counsel not listed on the case, regarding that case, would be improper conduct and should be heavily scrutinized regardless of who the defendant is," another offered.

"How can he rule on something he is a witness in? This is not just against lethal ethics, this is illegal," read a comment.

"This is a good time to disbar the judge and the lawyer both," someone else remarked.

"The judge who did something wrong is ruling on whether or he, himself did something inappropriate. Yeah, sounds like this isn't rigged at all," another chimed in.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.