New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who ordered the $454 million penalty on former President Donald Trump in his civil fraud case, on July 9 allowed for the subpoena of Adam Leitman Bailey, an attorney who claimed he advised the judge prior to the final ruling.
Mr. Bailey was ordered to share with defendants the subpoenaed materials within seven days.
Trump attorneys had sought to subpoena Mr. Bailey about his communications with the judge, arguing the that Mr. Bailey’s public claims indicate that the judge may have been influenced or improperly consulted outside parties about the case.
Hallway Conversation
During an interview aired on Feb. 16, the same day Justice Engoron issued his ruling, Mr. Bailey told NBC News that he had several weeks ago intercepted Justice Engoron in the hallway of the courthouse and discussed the statutes used in the high profile case.“I don’t think this judge is applying the law properly and I’m a big fan of this judge,” real estate attorney Adam Leitman Bailey told the reporter. “I really wanted him to get it right.”
Mr. Bailey said the judge had “a lot of questions” and Mr. Bailey “gave him everything I knew.”
Mr. Bailey said he never mentioned “Donald Trump,” and a court spokesperson at the time issued a statement denying anything improper.
“No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person,” court spokesperson Al Baker told media outlets.
Mr. Bailey is a high profile real estate lawyer and had, prior to that interview, also commented on the case in several interviews to various media outlets.
Justice Engoron ruled that by speaking publicly about the alleged hallway conversation, “Mr. Bailey has opened the door by making extraordinary claims to the media, in which he, by his own admission, stated that he attempted to offer unsolicited legal advice to the Court.
“According, defendants are entitled to any communications or documents in Mr. Bailey’s possession that involve, discuss, or in any way refer to ’the Action,' as defined in the subpoena,” the order reads.
Trump attorneys had filed a motion to subpoena all communications and documents between Mr. Bailey and the court, as well as all communications and documents regarding the hallway interaction.
Attorneys for Mr. Bailey argued the subpoena was far too broad, and must be narrowed to only materials related to the hallway interaction.
The judge agreed with Mr. Bailey and found that it was not necessary to turn over “any” materials related to communications between the court and Mr. Bailey, who has litigated several real estate cases in the mid-level New York Supreme Court and would possess communications about unrelated cases. To do so would be to “permit an improper wholesale fishing expedition,” the judge ruled.
