|

Judge
Disciplined for Friendship with Lawyer
By Cheryl Miller
w York Lawyer
The Recorder
January 10, 2007
The Commission on Judicial
Performance has publicly admonished a retired judge for failing to
disclose his chummy relationship with the prevailing plaintiff's
attorney in a $94.5 million inverse condemnation suit.
Former San Diego County
Superior Court Judge Vincent DiFiglia should have told the
defendants in the 2001 case that he had a long-term friendship with
the plaintiff's co-counsel, Vincent Bartolotta Jr., commissioners
said.
DiFiglia, who retired in
2003, also violated a judicial canon by failing to disclose publicly
that he had once worked for the defendant's counsel, the San Diego
city attorney's office, the commission wrote.
The CJP had already
privately chastised DiFiglia in 1992 for allowing Bartolotta and his
law partner to pay for the judge's play in golf tournaments, and
then failing to tell other attorneys in his court about his
relationship with the two lawyers.
Chief
Appeals Judge Steps Down
Charles J. Kahn Jr., Accused of Appearing
to Aid a Former Senator, Loses "Chief."
By Lucy Morgan
ST. Petersburg Times
November 18, 2006
TALLAHASSEE - Florida's
largest appellate court has quietly replaced its chief judge amid
internal rancor and suggestions of political influence surrounding
the bribery conviction and prison sentence of former Sen. W.D.
Childers.
Charles J. Kahn Jr.,
elected in 2005 to head the 1st District Court of Appeal for two
years, resigned the chief judge's job last month in the face of a
revolt by fellow judges.
A formal complaint alleging
misconduct has been lodged against Kahn, documents obtained Friday
by the St. Petersburg Times indicate.
In a written opinion
denying Childers' appeal of his bribery conviction, another judge
suggested that the public might conclude that Kahn was trying to
reverse Childers' conviction as a political favor.
In 1991, at the time Gov.
Lawton Chiles appointed Kahn to the court, he was a law partner of
Fred Levin, a prominent trial lawyer who is extremely close to
Childers.
In 1994, Levin, Childers
and Chiles hatched a plan to sneak a law through the Legislature
that allowed the state to sue tobacco companies and collect
$13-billion to repay the costs of providing health care to smokers
who depend on Medicaid.
Childers was a major player
on the state's political stage for more than 30 years, wheeling and
dealing as Senate president and chairman of important committees.
Often dressed in bright
pink or green jackets on the floor of the Senate, Childers was adept
at taking home the bacon for his West Florida district. He got
fellow legislators to include money in the state budget for a new
football stadium at the University of West Florida - a school with
no football team.
Forced by term limits to
leave the Senate in 2000, he won election to the Escambia County
Commission. He was charged with delivering a cooking pot filled with
cash to fellow Commissioner Willie Junior in return for his vote on
a $4.1-million land purchase.
Junior testified against
Childers, who was convicted of bribery. Before Childers' appeal was
decided, Junior was found under a house; the coroner concluded that
Junior killed himself by drinking antifreeze.
Childers' appeal
Childers appealed his
conviction and 3½-year prison sentence to the 1st District
Court of Appeal.
A three-judge panel headed
by Kahn voted 2-1 to overturn Childers' conviction. Kahn drafted the
opinion focusing on limits the trial judge set on cross- examination
of Junior.
That's when things turned
unusual: The other judges on the court decided to all hear the case,
"en banc," over the vehement objection of Kahn and the other two
judges on the panel. The full court voted 10-4 to uphold the
conviction.
Childers' lawyers asked the
appeal court to refer the case to the Florida Supreme Court to
determine the legality of having the entire 1st District vote.
In late June, again by a
10-4 vote, the 1st District rejected Childers' appeal. Judge Michael
E. Allen attached an opinion defending the decision to have the
entire court review the case. Allen said he was concerned that
Kahn's involvement would lead to "public perceptions of partiality
by this court."
Attaching newspaper
articles that described the friendship between Levin and Childers,
Allen said some Floridians might believe that Levin and Childers
influenced Kahn's attempt to overturn the conviction.
Allen noted that probably
would leave Childers free because Junior is no longer available to
testify.
"And the deciding vote
would have been cast by Fred Levin's former law partner," Allen
wrote. "The threat this case presented to the reputation of this
court, in my judgment, made it a case of exceptional importance. ...
"We should never perform
our responsibilities in a manner that would cause the public to
question the impartiality of our decisions," Allen wrote. "Yet I
believe that is precisely what Judge Kahn did by failing, on his own
motion, to recuse himself from consideration in this case."
Kahn says it's for best
Contacted Thursday, Kahn
would not discuss the reason he resigned as chief judge except to
say he thought it was best for the court. He remains on the court.
Kahn said he has not
maintained a relationship with Levin since he was appointed to the
court 16 years ago. He said he does not review cases involving the
Levin law firm.
Levin said Friday that he
asked Chiles to appoint Kahn to the court but said he has rarely
seen him in the past 16 years.
"I went to his father's
funeral, and he attended my brother's funeral, but that's about
all," Levin said.
Levin said he believes the
judges targeted him for criticism because they are jealous of the
large fees many lawyers make. On the tobacco case, Levin will
collect fees of about $200-million over 25 years.
Judge Edwin B. Browning
Jr., the new chief judge at the 1st District, did not return
telephone calls. Documents Browning released say that Kahn's fellow
judges met in early October to discuss "concerns within the court
over leadership and personal relationships within the court." Kahn
appeared at the meeting and resigned.
Misconduct allegations
against a judge generally are handled by the Judicial Qualifications
Commission and remain secret until formal charges are brought.
On Thursday, in response to
a request from 12 of the judges at the 1st District, Kahn was
removed from the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission.
Childers, who turns 73 next
week, is serving his sentence at Glades Correctional Institution in
South Florida.
Said Levin: "Knowing W.D.,
he's king of whatever prison he's in."
|
Order in Court! (Not Robe Room)
By Greg B. Smith
Daily News Staff Writer
August 27, 2006
|
|
Daily News Exclusive
- A federal judge repeatedly held proceedings in her robing room
in defiance of an appeals court ruling ordering her to stop the
practice, a Daily News investigation found.
In January 2005, the
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found Manhattan Federal Court Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram had improperly held the sentencing of one drug
dealer and taken the plea of another behind closed doors in her
robing room. The panel took the highly unusual step of ordering
Kram to redo both in open court.
The Appeals panel
called Kram's behavior a "fundamental" error that "harms the
integrity of our federal judicial system as a whole."
Yet three months later,
while Kram was overseeing the extortion trial of six defendants,
she was again holding conferences in her robing room, according
to court records.
She allowed a court
reporter to take notes, but barred defendants from
participating, according to several attorneys who were there.
During one robing-room
session that April, as a jury was being selected, a member of
the defense team offered the judge a green umbrella with a
wooden handle, according to several lawyers present.
The judge accepted the
gift in chambers, then continued business, according to the
lawyers.
A few days later, in
another robing-room session, Kram mentioned the gift giving by
asking if anyone objected. No one did, and she kept the
umbrella, according to several of those who were present.
The rules governing
judicial ethics state a judge "should not solicit or accept
anything of value from anyone seeking official action from or
doing business with the court."
"The Court's acceptance
of this gift at the start of the trial, at the very least, in
retrospect appears improper," said attorney Joseph Bondy, who
represented lead defendant Angelo DiPietro.
In reply to a News
inquiry, Kram declined to comment, saying the case was on
appeal, but added, "Everything pertinent to the case is on the
record. If any errors were made in the course of the trial, the
2nd Circuit is capable of finding them and seeing that they are
corrected."
"We have these
conferences that the public is excluded from," said defense
attorney William Aronwald, who also saw Kram accept the
umbrella. "Compounding the problem is she specifically invites
only the lawyers into the robing room.
"Trying a case before
Judge Kram is like trying a case in the Twilight Zone," he
added.
At one point, Bondy
wrote a letter to Kram demanding a mistrial because she
continued to hold robing-room conferences that excluded
defendants.
He argued that this
violated the public's First Amendment rights to openness in the
courts and his client's Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial.
In his June 7, 2005,
letter, Bondy specifically pointed out the January 2005 order by
the Appeals Court that had criticized Kram for holding court in
her robing room.
"Despite this recent
reversal and admonition by the 2nd Circuit," Bondy wrote, "Your
Honor did not hesitate to continue to hold important legal
proceedings during the course of a hotly contested
multidefendant criminal trial in the robing room."
Kram rejected the
mistrial bid, saying no lawyer had objected to the closed
sessions when they occurred. However, she then began holding the
rest of the conferences in open court.
All six defendants were
convicted of most of the charges against them. Most of the
lawyers say they intend to demand a new trial based on numerous
errors committed by Kram.
"I'm very optimistic
that none of the defendants in this case got a fair trial," said
Aronwald.
After an Aug. 6 News
report, judicial ethics experts raised questions about Kram's
role in appointing her son's friend as special master in a fraud
case. The friend, who so far has earned more than $200,000 as
special master, has since begun managing her son's trust fund
and helped him start a new business without pay. |
NY Judge
Takes Stand To Defend Conduct In Murder Trial
By Tom Perrotta
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
August 23, 2006
A state Supreme Court
justice yesterday said that his former law clerk was telling "lies"
when she accused him last year of having an improper ex parte
conversation with a prosecutor before a murder trial.
The judge, Justice Jaime A. Rios, was testifying at an unusual
hearing in Queens Supreme Court yesterday to determine if Tyrone
Johnson, a convicted murderer sentenced to 20 years in prison,
deserves a new trial.
In 2003, Mr. Johnson was convicted of murdering nightclub owner
Leroy Vann. He had been convicted of the same crime a year earlier,
but his conviction was thrown out because a former Queens
prosecutor, Claude Stuart, lied to Justice Rios about the
whereabouts of a witness.
Justice Rios, who now sits in Supreme Court, Civil Term, presided
over Mr. Johnson's second trial, too. Mr. Stuart has since been
suspended from the practice of law for three years. The second trial
was handled by Assistant District Attorney Eugene Reibstein.
Questions about the second trial arose when the judge's former
principle law clerk, Judith B. Memblatt, claimed last year that she
overheard a December 2002 conversation between the judge and Mr.
Reibstein, in which the judge coached the prosecutor about how to
handle a flawed witness.
Ms. Memblatt, who took notes of the conversations on Post-It notes,
accused the judge of impropriety shortly after she was fired in
April 2005.
She complained to the Commission on Judicial Conduct and has also
filed federal civil rights charges against the judge in the Eastern
District of New York, and has accused him of having an affair with a
former prosecutor. The Queens District Attorney's Office has
dismissed her claims as those of a disgruntled former employee.
Under questioning yesterday from Ronald L. Kuby, Mr. Johnson's new
attorney, Justice Rios admitted that he spoke to Mr. Reibstein both
before and after Mr. Johnson's second trial.
But he told Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Matthew J. D'Emic, who
presided over yesterday's hearing, that those conversations amounted
to "small talk." Justice Rios and Mr. Reibstein once worked together
in the Queens District Attorney's Office. The judge said they are
acquaintances, not friends and never associate.
Before the trial, the judge said, Mr. Reibstein had stopped by
chambers to give a "heads up" that he would not be ready for trial,
and that the defense counsel, Allen Brenner, had consented to an
adjournment.
Justice Rios said he could not recall any further details of that
conversation, but suggested it was nothing more than ordinary banter
that lasted for "10 to 15 minutes."
"I was being polite," the judge said. "I wasn't going to tell him to
leave."
Mr. Reibstein, who testified in the afternoon, said the judge did
say that he had doubts about a witness, Henry Hanley, who testified
in the first trial, recanted his testimony, and finally recanted his
recantation.
But Mr. Reibstein said he interpreted the judge's comment as an
understanding of why Mr. Reibstein needed more time to prepare the
case.
"Oh good, he understands I'm going to need time," Mr. Reibstein
said, recalling his reaction.
In the post-trial conversation, Justice Rios said, Mr. Reibstein
stopped by to thank him for a "fair and efficient trial." The judge
said he could have made a comment about the Appellate Division,
Second Department, possibly having a problem with Mr. Reibstein's
closing arguments, but the judge said he could not recall details of
the conversation.
Mr. Reibstein testified that the judge did make such a remark. The
judge, he said, suggested that the appeals court might think that
Mr. Reibstein had vouched for witnesses. He said the comment
surprised him.
"I remember thinking, 'What is he talking about?'" Mr. Reibstein
said. "I didn't vouch for a single witness."
He said he told Justice Rios, "I don't think I have any problem with
that at all."
Mr. Reibstein later added that he had no regrets about either
conversation.
Mr. Kuby pressed Justice Rios on the substance of the conversations
and whether the judge discussed Mr. Hanley and several crime scene
photographs.
The photographs showed cars parked in a driveway where Mr. Vann was
murdered. Mr. Hanley testified that Mr. Vann had moved the cars
prior to being killed. He changed his testimony at the second trial.
Mr. Kuby's questioning produced a few sharp exchanges.
When he began asking Justice Rios about a draft complaint he had
written concerning possible misconduct by Mr. Brenner, the defense
attorney, the judge asserted "law clerk judicial privilege."
Justice Rios' attorney, Michael S. Ross, who was watching from the
jury box, interjected, noting that the privilege would apply since
Justice Rios had given his draft to Ms. Memblatt for her comment.
The letter was never sent to the grievance committee.
Later, Mr. Kuby asked the judge if he would waive his privilege with
the Commission on Judicial Conduct and discuss any responses he made
to the agency.
Mr. Ross objected before Mr. Kuby could finish his question.
"It's argumentative and intended for the people in the audience,"
Mr. Ross said.
Justice Rios did not waive the privilege.
Earlier in the day, Ms. Memblatt testified under sharp questioning
from Assistant District Attorney Charles A. Testagrossa.
Ms. Memblatt, who is an attorney, admitted that she photocopied
documents without Justice Rios' permission.
"So you were stealing," Mr. Testagrossa said.
Mr. Kuby objected. Mr. Testagrossa also asked Ms. Memblatt if she
"was acquainted with the definition of larceny?"
Later, he questioned Ms. Memblatt about other complaints she had
filed against judges, and her allegations that court officials,
including Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, had played a
role in her firing.
"You really believe that?" Mr. Testagrossa asked.
"Absolutely," Ms. Memblatt said.
Judge
Reprimanded for Relations with Lawyer
James Adams Admitted Misconduct
By Paul Flemming
Tallahassee Democrat
June 8, 2006
Lee County Judge James
Adams got a public talking to Wednesday from Florida's chief justice
and was told to go try to repair his reputation after admitting to
carrying on a two-month affair with an attorney who had cases before
him.
''Judge Adams, when you
indulged in a romantic relationship with an attorney practicing
before you, you placed the public trust in jeopardy,'' Chief Justice
Barbara Pariente said to Adams, who stood silently before her and
the six justices of the state's highest court. ''You compromised the
single most important source of your authority, the perception of
the legal community and the public that a judge is impartial in
deciding cases.''
The 50-year-old Lee County
judge has served on the bench since 1992. He is unopposed in a
November reinstatement campaign.
Adams admitted his
misconduct in an agreement with the Judicial Qualifications
Commission after a complaint filed against him by the now-ex-husband
of the woman, Kennetha Lynn Donohue.
The commission found, and
Adams admitted, that he granted continuances in a number of cases
represented by Donohue and dismissed traffic cases against clients
of Donohue.
This ''gave the appearance
of impropriety,'' the commission found.
Adams' affair with Donohue
lasted from late September to the middle of November 2004. The
commission said ''the relationship, though inappropriate, was
short-lived.''
Pariente said Wednesday
that it was only appearances that had been violated.
''A review of the record
reveals no evidence that the relationship actually influenced your
actions in any of the cases,'' Pariente said.
That, coupled with Adams'
otherwise spotless record and his acceptance of full responsibility
for his misdeeds, resulted in the official reprimand instead of
harsher treatment.
Pariente is concluding her
two-year term as chief justice of the Supreme Court. In that time,
the court - final arbiter of judicial misconduct cases - has removed
two judges and reprimanded six, including Adams.
Reading from a prepared
text, Pariente said Adams' behavior harmed his own reputation, but
also those of other judges.
''Much excellent work and
good will generated by our judges can be undermined by the
misconduct of a few,'' she said. ''Each public reprimand saddens me.
Each is regrettable.
Lee Judge to Be Admonished by State Supreme Court
By Aaron Deslatte
Tallahassee Democrat
May 18, 2006
TALLAHASSEE FL - The state
Supreme Court will publicly admonish Lee County Judge James R. Adams
next month for his romance with a lawyer practicing before his
court.
Florida's high court today ordered Adams to appear June 7 for the
public reprimand, but declined to impose a stiffer punishment for
granting dismissals and continuances in cases lawyer Kennetha Lynn
Donahue had in his court.
"A judge who enters into a romantic relationship with a lawyer who
practices before the judge, and then continues to preside over
matters in which the lawyer appears as counsel, transgresses the
Code of Judiciary Conduct in both letter and spirit," the state
court wrote.
"Judge Adams failed to maintain the high standards of conduct
necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary," the seven
Supreme Court justices unanimously opined, " ... his conduct tended
to create the impression that he allowed a personal relationship to
influence his judgment ... and that he would have difficulty
performing his judicial duties fairly and without bias."
Ken Kellum, court operations manager for the 20th judicial circuit
that includes Lee County, said Adams planned to release a public
statement sometime before his reprimand in Tallahassee next month,
but would have no further comment.
"He still intends to put out a statement but hasn't issued it yet,"
Kellum said.
Donahue could not be reached for comment.
Adams admitted to state investigators that for two months in 2004 he
had a romantic relationship with Donahue, and that he granted "a
considerable number" of continuances in five cases Donahue had in
his court. In four other traffic cases Donahue handled, Adams
dismissed the charges.
According to the investigative findings, Adams admits, "he granted a
number of continuances at the request of the lawyer with whom he had
a romantic relationship, thereby causing his impartiality to be
brought into question."
The Supreme Court can impose much sterner punishments, including
fines, suspensions or removal from the bench, but acknowledged in
its order that there was no proof Adams had let his personal
relationship
influence the outcome of cases.
"If evidence had demonstrated that the relationship affected the
disposition of any matter before the judge, we would not hesitate to
impose stiffer discipline," the court wrote.
A Judge's
Affair Has Ex-hubby Seething
By Sam Cook
news-press.com
May 14, 2006
The judge is ashamed.
The mistress isn't talking.
The ex-husband is outraged.
James
R. Adams, 50, a Lee County judge since 1992, is scheduled to receive
a public reprimand June 7 from the Florida Supreme Court in
Tallahassee for ethical misconduct with a Fort Myers attorney.
Kennetha Lynn Donohue Rhodes, 37, a defense attorney locally since
2001, had a romantic relationship with Adams in 2004 while routinely
handling a number of cases in the judge's court.
Thomas Donohue, 45, was
married to Rhodes at the time of the affair. He filed an ethics
complaint against Adams with the state Judicial
Qualifications Commission
in January 2005. The
Adams Lee County
Judge
JQC announced its recommendation in February.
"I've never had a complaint filed against me as a judge,'' Adams
says. "It's uncomfortable and embarrassing. It's my own doing. I'll
never do it again.''
Adams granted Rhodes numerous continuances in five cases and
dismissed charges against four more of her defendants in traffic
cases.
Donohue says the JQC
reprimand is a slap on the hand and Adams should be removed from the
bench for his transgressions.
"I'm not just an irate husband hurt by his wife,'' says Donohue, a
1980 Fort Myers High graduate and former commercial fisherman. "I
was married to her for 11 years when this happened. I was betrayed
by a judge.
"A judge is supposed to be
held to a higher standard.''
Investigators found Adams violated canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Judicial
Code of Conduct.
Adams should have disclosed a relationship with Rhodes and recused
himself from her cases.
The JQC report says Adams
accepts full responsibility for his conduct, admits it shouldn't
have occurred and regrets and apologizes for conduct giving the
appearance of impropriety.
"The Investigative Panel in reaching this agreement notes that Judge
Adams' record as a judge is previously unblemished, he is active in
his community, and the relationship, although inappropriate, was
short-lived extending from late September 2004 to mid-November
2004,'' says the report.
Adams says he and the JQC
panel reached an agreement on punishment, but Donohue says the
reprimand trivializes the affair and he asked the Florida Supreme
Court to reject it.
"The judge never apologized to me,'' Donohue says. "He's only
regretful and remorseful because I found out. If I hadn't found out,
he'd still be going out with her.''
Donohue says he hired a private investigator who pulled cell phone
records and cross-referenced calls between Rhodes and Adams. Donohue
confronted his wife Nov. 18, but Rhodes told him she and Adams were
just friends.
"Several days later, she
broke down and admitted she had a sexual relationship with him,''
Donohue says. "My ex-wife also told me she would do or say anything
to protect their careers.''
Rhodes, who was divorced from Donohue on Aug. 15, 2005, refused an
opportunity to comment May 3 at her office.
Adams, who has been an
attorney and then a judge in Lee County since 1983, says he
understands Donohue's bitterness, but doesn't believe his mistakes
call for his removal from the bench.
"It was a relationship of a very short duration,'' Adams says. "Six
weeks. I had inappropriate contact with her. I regret it.''
Adams, who says he's been divorced six years, most regrets his 2004
misconduct mars a spotless and stellar record.
The judge, known for his
even temperament, has always stood tall in the community.
Adams' outreach ranges from umpiring Little League games to setting
up a night court so traffic scofflaws wouldn't miss work.
"It tarnishes my record,
but it'll be my last complaint,'' he says.
Alva's John Shearer Jr. has been on both sides of the bench. He
served as circuit judge for five years and was a longtime defense
attorney before retiring.
Is the public reprimand fair punishment for Adams?
"Yeah, that's about all you
can do to the guy,'' Shearer says. "He's embarrassed as he can
get.''
He says ethics is a ticklish concept to determine.
"When I was on the bench,
my wife, one of them anyway, worked for a law firm,'' Shearer says.
"Was I supposed to recuse myself every time a lawyer from her firm
came before me?
"I don't think so. I thought I was fair, but I don't really have an
answer to that.''
Shearer says Adams or
Rhodes should have come clean in court, but affairs go on every day.
"I don't think Judge Adams would have done anything judicially to
help (Rhodes) because he was having sex with her,'' Shearer says.
"But (Donohue) won't believe it because the judge was digging in his
flower garden.
"Death wouldn't be
sufficient (punishment) for the husband.''
Donohue doesn't want the death penalty, just Adams' removal from a
county bench.
"Whether you're having an affair with a lawyer or a Circle K girl,
it's immoral and unethical,'' Donohue says. "The sad thing about our
society is people don't feel an affair is wrong.''
Judge
Resigns After Allegedly
Cashing In on Fen-Phen Settlement
By Roger Alford
New York Lawyer
The Associated Press
February 27, 2006
FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A
northern Kentucky judge has resigned rather than face removal for
allegedly profiting from a $200 million settlement involving the
diet drug fen-phen, a state judicial panel said Monday.
Judge Joseph F. Bamberger
was publicly reprimanded Monday by the state's Judicial Conduct
Commission, which said his actions "shock the conscience."
Bamberger, who resigned
Feb. 24, was a senior status special judge, a retired jurist who
could be assigned to certain cases.
In a letter of reprimand,
the commission said the judge gave attorneys, including one of his
personal friends, somewhere between $86 million and $104 million
from the 2001 settlement.
In addition, Bamberger
allowed more than $20 million from the settlement to be put into a
charitable fund, and then he became a paid director of the fund,
receiving $5,000 a month plus a $350 monthly expense allowance.
That left the 431
plaintiffs involved in the settlement to split about $74 million.
More than 300 of the plaintiffs have sued three lawyers in the case.
"If the violations
described in this order had been proved at a hearing, the commission
would have removed Judge Bamberger from his office as senior status
special judge," commissioners said in the reprimand.
There was no immediate
comment from Bamberger, who was a circuit judge in Boone and
Gallatin counties for 12 years. Calls to his home in Florence were
not answered Monday.
The fenfluramine half of
fen-phen was pulled from the market in September 1997 by drugmaker
Wyeth amid reports some users had heart valve damage and a few had a
deadly lung condition. Fen-phen was never an FDA-approved
combination. The phentermine half remained on the market.
Ex-Judge's
Chumminess With Lawyers
Voids Arbitration Award
By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
February 23, 2006
An arbitration award cannot survive where the arbitrator went out to
lunch with one of the parties' lawyers and that lawyer's firm
provided the arbitrator with a conference room and legal research
free of charge in an unrelated case, a bankruptcy judge in Manhattan
ruled last week.
The arbitrator, former U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Francis G. Conrad, had
resolved a real-estate dispute in favor of a landlord of the debtor,
but Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Prudence Carter Beatty
overturned the award, finding that Mr. Conrad's actions gave "the
appearance of partiality."
Judge Beatty's decision
In re First Quality Realty, 02-14758, set aside Mr.
Conrad's arbitration ruling which had barred the debtor, First
Quality Realty, from converting four floors of a Brooklyn building
it had rented from commercial to residential use.
In addition to finding an appearance of partiality, Justice Beatty
observed that Mr. Conrad's acknowledged practice of asking law and
accounting firms for free use of facilities to host an arbitration
might "in and of itself, be improper."
Mr. Conrad said that as a court-appointed neutral he could not
comment on the decision.
Mr. Conrad, who served a full-14 year term on the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Vermont before leaving the bench in 1999,
was selected as arbitrator by agreement of the parties. He was
chosen from a registry maintained by the Southern District
Bankruptcy Court.
Judge Beatty cautioned that her opinion should not be read as
finding that Mr. Conrad was, in fact, biased. Instead, she wrote,
his actions could cause a reasonable person to conclude that he had
created an "appearance of partiality."
She enumerated several actions that could give rise to an appearance
of bias:
• On days when there were arbitration sessions, Mr. Conrad went out
to lunch regularly with an attorney for the landlord and persons
representing his client, Reva Holding Corp.
• The law firm representing the landlord, Westerman, Ball, Ederer,
Miller & Scharfstein, provided gratis at the request of Mr. Conrad
two conference rooms and legal research to support a mediation in an
unrelated case in the Eastern District Bankruptcy Court. The
mediation occurred over several days in December 2004, while the
parties in the Southern District case were awaiting Mr. Conrad's
decision.
• Mr. Conrad was hired to represent the principal of another
corporation that had filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District.
That company also was represented by Westerman Ball.
• While the arbitration was pending, Mr. Conrad was selected to
mediate an Eastern District bankruptcy case where one party was
represented by Westerman Ball.
The appearance of bias was furthered because, despite an affirmative
duty, Judge Beatty wrote, Mr. Conrad had not disclosed to the debtor
his other business dealings with Westerman Ball (as lawyer, mediator
and user of its facilities).
With respect to the lunches, Mr. Conrad had asked the debtor's
attorney if he objected to Mr. Conrad having lunch with the
landlord's lawyer, Jeffrey Miller of Westerman Ball.
The fact that Mr. Conrad asked the debtor's attorney, Abraham J.
Backenroth, if "he minded the lunch arrangements" was immaterial,
Judge Beatty wrote, because "no one in Backenroth's position could
ever truthfully answer that question without worrying about raising
the ire of the arbitrator presiding over his or her matter."
By accepting employment in a matter involving Westerman Ball, Judge
Beatty added, Mr. Conrad had assumed a direct interest "for both his
client and in connection with his own fees" in a matter involving a
law firm for a party to an arbitration pending before him.
Improper 'Courtesies'
Judge Beatty expressed particular concern over Mr. Conrad's practice
of asking law and accounting firms to provide space and supportive
services, free of charge, for his mediations and arbitrations.
In an affidavit, Mr. Conrad had stated that because he did not have
his own conference room, it was his "custom" to request from law and
accounting firms the use of conference rooms without charge. Firms
letting him use their space, he added in the affidavit, also
provided "legal research, administrative, secretarial, fax, and
telephone services, gratis to the mediating parties and me."
Judge Beatty wrote that in requesting and accepting the free use of
facilities, Mr. Conrad failed "to recognize that it is his very
position as a former judge which may cause these firms to agree to
his requests in the first place."
She wrote in a footnote that "former judges are not entitled to
accept services that they would otherwise have to pay for by virtue
of their former public office." In another footnote, Judge Beatty
stated her belief that "such 'courtesies' should be monetarily
compensated by the Arbitrator."
The debtor, First Quality Realty, was represented by Gerald A.
Novack and Kathryn C. Plunkett of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson
Graham. Mr. Backenroth and Mark A. Frankel of Backenroth Frankel and
Krinsky represented First Quality at the mediation.
In addition to Mr. Miller, the landlord, Reva Holding, was
represented by Mickee M. Hennessy, also of Westerman Ball.
Did Fling
Blind Judge? Legal Eagles Eye Appeals
By Scott Shifrel
New York Daily News
November 20, 2005
An allegation about an
illicit affair between a judge and a prosecutor has defense lawyers
scrambling to check their files for what could turn into a flood of
appeals, the Daily News has learned.
Lawyers who had cases
before Queens Supreme Court Justice Jaime Rios when he allegedly was
seeing prosecutor Meryl Lutsky in 1996 and 1997 tell The News the
affair charge is troubling and convictions involving their clients
need to be reviewed.
"I can't say anything about
the validity of the accusations [of the relationship], but I have to
at least investigate," defense lawyer Warren Silverman said. "If a
judge has a close relationship with one of the parties, then it is
improper for the judge to handle the case. If true, he should have
recused himself."
Silverman represented a
Queens woman in a 1996 drug case heard by Rios. His client ended up
serving two years behind bars.
Lutsky worked regularly as
an assistant district attorney in Rios' courtroom, appearing mostly
on motions to suppress evidence or statements.
"There's no question that
any conviction obtained where both the judge and Ms. Lutsky were
involved in should be reviewed," defense lawyer Todd Greenberg said.
"If the allegation is borne out to be true, then the court system
should look at these cases."
Greenberg said one of his
clients, Kishore Sumasar, 29, served three years on a drug charge
after appearing before Rios. He plans to order the archived court
records next week.
The affair allegation was
made by the judge's ex-law secretary, Judith Memblatt. Defense
lawyer Ron Kuby cited the alleged affair when he sought a new trial
for a convicted murderer.
Kuby is arguing that Rios'
relationship with Lutsky led the judge to coach another prosecutor,
Eugene Reibstein, to help him convict Kuby's client in 2003.
Rios, through a spokesman,
repeatedly has declined to comment because the murder case is still
pending. Lutsky also has declined to comment.
Memblatt, 47, who was fired
by Rios in 2004, made the allegation in a $10 million
wrongful-termination lawsuit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court and in
a complaint to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Judge
Accused of Bedding ADA
By Scott Shifrel
New York Daily News
November 16, 2005
 |
| Fired aide Judith Memblatt has
accused Queens judge Jaime Rios of having an improper affair
with prosecutor. |
|
|
A Queens judge was in bed with the district attorney's office -
literally, his ex-law secretary has charged in a $10 million
dollar suit.
The explosive
allegation, which already has come to the attention of the state
Commission on Judicial Conduct, could lead to a new trial for a
convicted murderer, a prominent defense attorney said yesterday.
"A judge is required to
be a neutral arbiter, not a secret, second prosecutor helping to
convict the defendant," said defense lawyer Ronald Kuby.
Kuby filed court papers
claiming state Supreme Court Justice Jaime Rios, 59, had an
"improper sexual relationship" with an assistant district
attorney that led the judge to help prosecutors win a second
conviction against accused killer Tyrone Johnson in 2003.
Rios' relationship with
then-Assistant District Attorney Meryl Lutsky was first alleged
in a complaint filed last year with the Commission on Judicial
Conduct by Judith Memblatt, the judge's former legal assistant.
Memblatt, 47, who was
fired by Rios in 2004, followed up the complaint to the
commission with a wrongful termination lawsuit in Brooklyn
Federal Court that makes the same charges.
In the disciplinary
case, Memblatt said the affair dated back to 1996. She added
Lutsky "clearly implied to me that they did have a sexual
relationship."
Lutsky resigned as
prosecutor in 2000 to go to work for state Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer.
But Kuby claims that
Rios' relationship with Lutsky and the Queens district
attorney's office stacked the deck against Johnson, whose
initial conviction for killing the owner of an after-hours club
was overturned in 2002.
According to Kuby, Rios
and prosecutor Eugene Reibstein met in the judge's chambers
where he coached the assistant by "suggest[ing] ways that the
case against Mr. Johnson should be improved."
Rios and Lutsky
declined comment. The district attorney's office dismissed the
allegations as a rehash by a "disgruntled former court system
employee."
Axed Aide: Judge
Disrobed with Da
By Alex
Ginsberg, Ikimulisa Livingston and Cynthia R. Fagen
New York Post
November 16, 2005
A
married Queens judge carried on a torrid affair with a female
prosecutor while handing out special favors to the DA's office,
including tips on how to win a murder trial, his former
secretary claims.
Judith Memblatt says
she was fired after she charged that her former boss, Supreme
Court Justice Jaime Rios, was "unfit to sit as a judge" because
of an inappropriate affair with Assistant DA Meryl Lutsky.
Memblatt chronicled the alleged relationship because she was
worried it was undermining the rights of defendants prose-cuted
in Rios' court, she told The Post yesterday.
TRYSTED TALE:
A fired secretary claims
Justice Jaime Rios had an affair with
In another
stunning allegation, Memblatt said
ex-Assistant DA Meryl Lutsky (above) and
that Rios also acted as
"an unofficial adviser"
secretly aided prosecutor Eugene
to members
of the Queens DA's office as a favor
Reibstein. Lutsky, at her office yesterday,
for ignoring his
affair with Lutsky.
calls the claims "ridiculous."
Photo: Matthew McDermott
"Basically,
they were willing to do anything to
rush to the judge's side and cover for him rather than determine
if there was a real impropriety. That kind of put them in the
position of covering for the judge. He was beholden to them,"
Memblatt told The Post.
Memblatt said there
were even incidents in court when Rios openly flirted with
Lutsky and on one occasion boldly asked his alleged lover "how
many bedrooms there were in her apartment."
"They both immediately
started giggling," Memblatt wrote in a letter to the state
Commission on Judicial Conduct, which eventually told her they
did not wish to launch an investigation.
She also said that
Lutsky and Rios went missing from court "at length and returned
to the courtroom almost simultaneously." Memblatt said she made
copies of his desk calendar.
She said Rios would
scribble "Meryl Monday" and an "M" next to two dates, July 12
and 13, on a 1996 calendar that he kept. A "K" on his calendar
referred to his wife, Kathleen Pizarro.
Memblatt said Rios also
secretly coached prosecutor Eugene Reibstein without the defense
attorney present in a controversial murder case that resulted in
a conviction.
"When I saw Mr.
Reibstein enter the chambers, and when I heard what the judge
was discussing, I was just sick to my stomach over it," she
said. Lawyers for convicted murderer Tyrone Johnson are now
requesting a retrial in the fatal shooting of nightclub owner
LeRoy Vann in 2000.
Johnson's mother,
Dorethea, said she was horrified when she learned the
allegations.
"I thought he was a
fair judge, but he was not. Give my son back to me, leave us
alone," the incensed woman said. "It should be dismissed. They
did too many things that are wrong."
But Queens DA Richard
Brown said the defendant's conviction was properly obtained.
The legal secretary is
now suing her former boss in federal court for wrongful
termination.
"This situation so
grossly compromised the rights of the defendants and destroyed
the integrity of the proceedings that to ignore its existence
would have been unethical," she said.
Lutsky, 38, who left
her ADA job in February 2000, vehemently denied the allegations.
"That's ridiculous.
It's absolutely untrue," she told The Post.
Lutsky said she left
after seven years to work in the state attorney general's office
in Westchester.
"I am categorically
denying it. I don't like my name being besmirched," she said,
adding that she didn't even recall Memblatt.
Neither Rios nor his
lawyer returned calls for comment.
Reibstein declined
comment.
Johnson's lawyer, Ron
Kuby, said, "Generally, I don't care who Judge Rios is screwing
as long as he's not screwing my client. But the conclusion that
Judith has drawn is that the judge's long-term improper sexual
relationship created the conditions of favoritism to the DA's
office."
Additional reporting by
Jennifer Fermino |
State
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Disciplines Judge James R. Pastrick
September 6, 2005
Key excepts from the
decision are as follows:
"As found by the Commission, Judge Pastrick raised the subject of
his daughter’s employment in a conversation with a store employee
about court business. The Commission stated: "While attempting to
help his daughter find employment, [the judge] should have been
especially careful to avoid any conduct that might convey that he
was using his judicial status to further private interests."
Instead, by mixing judicial and personal matters, the judge
""appeared to be trading on his judicial office in order to benefit
his daughter’’s interests," contrary to the ethical rules."
"The ethical standards prohibit a judge from lending the prestige of
judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or
others and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety (Sections
100.2 and 100.2[C] of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct).
Respondent violated these provisions by his admitted conduct when,
while visiting the Food-Mart to discuss procedures in a bad check
case involving the store, he asked a store employee whether there
were any positions available, said that his daughter was looking for
a job and picked up an application
for her. Later, respondent personally delivered the completed
application to the store."
"While attempting to help his daughter find employment, respondent
should have been especially careful to avoid any conduct that might
convey that he was using his judicial status to further private
interests. Instead, by raising the subject of his daughter’’s
employment during a conversation with a store employee about court
business, respondent appeared to be trading on his judicial office
to benefit his daughter’s interests. In that context, respondent’s
discussion of procedures in a bad check case involving the store
could easily be perceived as an explicit reminder of
his judicial power, intended to intimidate or influence the store’s
hiring decision."
"Regardless of respondent’s intent, he should have realized that his
actions on his daughter’s behalf, in which he mixed judicial and
personal matters, could be construed as trading on the prestige of
the judiciary to advance private interests, in violation of the
ethical standards. As the Court of Appeals has stated, judges must
recognize that "any actionstaken in the public sphere reflect,
whether designedly or not, upon the prestige of the judiciary" and
"must assiduously avoid those contacts
which might create even the appearance of impropriety." Matter of
Lonschein, 50 NY2d 569, 572, 573 (1980). See also, Matter of McKeon,
1999 Annual Report 117 (Comm. on Judicial Conduct) (judge improperly
used the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests by
writing a letter on judicial stationery to the corporation counsel
of the City of New York, a frequent litigant in his court, seeking
to expedite the hiring of a former court employee with whom he had a
personal relationship). While respondent’s judgment may have been
clouded by a
desire to help his daughter, that does not excuse his ethical
transgressions."
The full official decision is at:
http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/P/pastrick.htm
Better to
Know the Judge
As an Adult Home Deteriorated,
a Veteran Jurist and a Lawyer Shared Cocktails and Dinner
By Tom Robbins
The Village Voice
August 9, 2005

Another
report of insider trading in the Brooklyn courts arrived in late
July from the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct. This one
produced more sighs than fury. Years after editorial pages had spent
their wrath condemning Brooklyn's judicial politics as a school for
scandal, here was another censure of another veteran judge for
failing to reveal his ties to yet an other politically wired
attorney practicing before him. Even the names were predictable.
Supreme Court Justice Richard Huttner,
Machine challenger: Judge Margarita
L. a clubhouse
regular, had never told
Torres campaigns for Surrogate's
Court other
lawyers in a case he adjudicated
photo: Willie Davis/Veras
about his clubhouse regular, about his friendship with defense
counsel Ravi Batra, former law partner of assemblyman and Democratic
county leader Clarence Norman Jr. The panel reported that Huttner
neglected to tell plaintiffs that while he was hearing their case he
and his wife were having cocktails with Batra and his spouse, or
that the judge had also attended a wed ding anniversary and a
memorial service with the Batra family. Or that he and the attorney
had shared "drinks, lunch, and dinner together on numerous
occasions." Or that he thought so highly of Batra he had awarded the
lawyer 11 separate fiduciary appointments.
What to do?
Huttner, 70 years old,
caught a break. On the proviso that he will permanently retire on
December 31, the panel "reluctantly" let him off with censure. Case
closed. The report made for a four-inch wire service story in the
Times; it never made it past the borough section in the Daily
News.
But not since Judge Victor
Barron, another clubhouse hack, was caught demanding $115,000 to fix
the case of a maimed three-month-old baby has a story penetrated so
near to the rotten heart of Brooklyn's judicial politics.
Batra's appearance before
Huttner was on behalf of a wretchedly deteriorated adult home run by
Norman's father, Re verend Clarence Norman Sr., pastor of one of
Brooklyn's largest churches. In Baisden et al. v. Pacific
House Residence for Adults, lawyers for the home's residents,
most of them the formerly homeless with varying degrees of mental
problems, were seeking to block Norman Sr.'s efforts to sell the
building and evict them. At the time, Reverend Norman was trying,
with Batra's help, to stay one step ahead of state regulators who
were being forced to act on years of complaints of callous care and
grievous conditions at the home.
When I visited Pacific
House in the summer of 2000 while the case was before Huttner,
residents were aimlessly roaming the streets ("A
Ministry of Neglect," June 28––July 4, 2000). Several
told me they were terrified about what would befall them. The most
cogent understood exactly what was going on. One woman, Clara
Taylor, had formed a residents' council, which had sought out legal
services attorneys. Taylor had personally confronted Norman Sr.
about the situation. The reverend had pled poverty. While the home
collected $60,000 a month from the residents' disability checks, he
said he was hobbled by a poor cash flow. Additional government
grants had been denied after inspectors found rampant vermin,
unsanitary bathrooms, and poor care.
Taylor had also cornered
the reverend's son when the assemblyman attended a street fair near
the home. She had pointed to a urine-soaked resident, sitting
mumbling and untended on a nearby stoop. "I asked him if he would
help. He said, 'I'm glad you're concerned,' and promised to speak to
his father," Taylor told me.
But when I got Assemblyman
Norman on the phone that summer he said that his only involvement
was to ask his partner Batra to represent his father. Batra got
results. Before Huttner, the lawyer was able to win his client
sufficient breathing room to negotiate a sale of his property minus
its troubled residents, who were dispersed elsewhere in the city to
another politically tied organization. It was "a graceful exit," Batra told me then.
Later this month, after
long delays, Assemblyman Norman is finally due to go to trial on the
first of four indictments brought against him by Brooklyn District
Attorney Charles Hynes. The county leader stands accused of double
billing for his gas receipts, failing to disclose a $2,700 in-
kind contribution from a
lobbyist, misfiling a $5,000 campaign check, and compelling judicial
candidates to use favored vendors.
Several of the charges
appear shaky. But on any moral scale, they are far outweighed by the
outrage of Pacific House and the casual use of Brooklyn's Democratic
judicial-political complex to defend it. Yet no law enforcement
office looked to see if there were any penal code violations there.
It was considered business as usual; a crassly cynical business
perhaps, but not criminal. Meanwhile, conveniently for both Hynes
and Norman, the first jury's verdict isn't likely to be heard until
after the September 13th primary, thus sparing one or the other a
major embarrassment.
That Tuesday, Hynes faces
his first competitive race for re-election since he won office in
1989, with three challengers seeking his job. It is an important day
for Norman as well. He's hoping his candidate for D.A., an
undistinguished, clubhouse-bred state senator from east Brooklyn
named John Sampson, can ride a tide of African American votes to
unseat Hynes. Another important goal for the embattled leader is to
try to hold on to the Surrogate's Court judgeship, the single most
lucrative judicial post in the borough. The position had been held
by another Norman candidate, Judge Michael Feinberg, who bizarrely
won the open seat in 1996 on a reform platform. Feinberg even won
the Times' endorsement that year, telling its editorial board
he would have a panel "screen appointments and recommend changes in
how the place was run."
Of course he did no such
thing. He immediately appointed a longtime Norman ally, East
Flatbush Democratic district leader Marietta Small, as public
administrator, a job that calls for competence and sensitivity in
the handling of estates of the deceased. Small brought neither to
the job. Two separate audits have chastised Small, who still holds
her $91,000-a-year post, with bungling multiple cases and losing
track of assets.
For the profitable job of
counsel to the public administrator, Feinberg held no interviews,
instead selecting his friend and neighbor Louis Rosenthal, whose
closest experience in the surrogate business was his father's
service as public administrator in the early 1960s. Rosenthal
promptly began to collect an 8 percent fee for every estate that
crossed his desk, 2 percent more than counsels in other boroughs. He
did so without filing the required affidavits describing what he'd
done to earn the money. This was not a problem for Feinberg,
however, who rubber-stamped more than $8 million in payments to his
friend.
Such pillaging probably
would have rolled merrily along had not two Daily News
reporters, Nancie Katz and Larry Cohler-Esses, exposed the scheme in
May 2002. In the wake of their stories, the Attorney General's
Office and the Commission on Judicial Conduct each opened
investigations. Rosenthal was forced out. In late June, the state
Court of Appeals upheld the judicial conduct panel's ruling that
Feinberg should also be removed. The judge had admitted to the
commission that he had only "skimmed" the rules of office, and
somehow missed the one about required affidavits. The panel found
him "incredible, evasive, and unreliable."
Norman's replacement
candidate for the office is a protéégéé, Supreme Court Justice Diana
Johnson, who attends Clarence Norman Sr.'s First Baptist Church in
Crown Heights. He has a backup candidate, Judge Lawrence Knipel, who
has gotten good marks on the bench but whose independence has been
questioned since his wife is a district leader and Norman loyalist.
The third candidate is
civil court judge Margarita Lóópez Torres, who has been tilting her
lance at Norman's machine ever since he refused to back her for
re-election in 2002. The reason? Lóópez Torres refused to accept a
political appointee as her law clerk ("The
Judge Who Said No," July 31––August 6, 2002).
In the surrogate's race,
Lóópez Torres has pledged to do all the things Feinberg claimed he
would nine years ago, and more. "I am going to structure the court
in a way it serves the people," she said under a hot noon sun at a
City Hall press conference last month. "The integrity of this court
has been challenged," she said. "I will change that."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0532,robbins1,66692,5.html
NY Judge
Censured, Leaving Bench
By Tom Perrotta
New York Law Journal
New York Lawyer
July 27, 2005
Brooklyn Supreme Court
Justice Richard D. Huttner has agreed to leave the bench at the end
of the year after being censured for a second time in less than four
years, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct announced yesterday.
The commission indicated
that it would have preferred to remove the judge from the bench, but
said it was "constrained" by the fact that it could not have
completed a disciplinary proceeding without his cooperation before
the end of the judge's current term in December. In agreeing not to
seek recertification, the commission said, Justice Huttner, 70, had
"acknowledged his misconduct."
"The judge's departure from
office was an essential element of this stipulated censure," Robert
H. Tembeckjian, the commission's administrator and counsel, said in
an interview.
The commission faulted
Justice Huttner, who has been sitting in Queens since 2002, for
presiding over a case in which a long-time friend, prominent
Brooklyn attorney Ravi Batra, represented a party.
Justice Huttner did not
inform the opposition of his relationship with Mr. Batra, with whom
he has frequently dined and socialized since the mid-1990s. They
have visited each other's homes and Justice Huttner also attended
Mr. Batra's wedding anniversary party, according to the commission.
Between 1996 and 1999,
Justice Huttner appointed Mr. Batra as a fiduciary in 11 cases. In
one 1998 case, he appointed Mr. Batra receiver and counsel to
Cypress Hills Cemetery. He continued to socialize with Mr. Batra
while the case was before him.
The conduct commission
singled out another case for its strongest criticism: Baisden v.
Pacific House Residence for Adults Housing Development Fund
Corporation .
Mr. Batra represented two
of three defendants in the case, which involved an adult home whose
president was Clarence Norman Sr., the father of the Brooklyn
Democratic leader Clarence Norman, who was once a member of Mr.
Batra's law firm. Justice Huttner did not disclose his relationship
with Mr. Batra to attorneys, nor did he reveal that he had awarded
Mr. Batra fiduciary appointments. His failure to do so violated the
standards of judicial conduct, the commission found in a unanimous
ruling.
"At the very least,
[Justice Huttner] should have disclosed the relationship so that the
parties and their attorneys could have had an opportunity to
consider whether to seek his disqualification," the commission
wrote.
The commission said a
mitigating factor was that Justice Huttner ultimately played a
"relatively small" role in the conclusion of the Baisden suit. The
parties presented him with an agreed-upon stipulation and he signed
it "so ordered."
In 2001, Justice Huttner
was censured for using the prestige of his office to advance private
interests when he actively participated in litigation involving the
board of his cooperative. Though the cases involving Mr. Batra
predated the previous sanction, the conduct commission said that the
timing should not mitigate the current penalty.
"The record establishes
that respondent lacks sensitivity to the special ethical obligations
of judges and indicates the need for a severe sanction," the
commission wrote.
Mr. Batra was recently at
the center of another judicial sanction. In April, Manhattan Acting
Supreme Court Justice Diane A. Lebedeff was censured for presiding
over a personal injury suit in which Mr. Batra was a plaintiff.
The two have a personal
relationship, and Justice Lebedeff at times excused opposing counsel
so she could engage in "gossip" unrelated to the case, according to
the commission's ruling. She also appointed Mr. Batra to a
guardianship that paid him $84,000 while his personal injury suit
was pending. The suit was eventually settled for $225,000. Justice
Lebedeff was reassigned to Civil Court shortly after her sanction,
the second censure of her career.
In a statement after the
release of the Huttner decision, Mr. Batra said the ruling had
created a "new and higher standard" for judges that should be
applauded by the bench and the bar. In an interview, he added that
since the Lebedeff ruling, he has been telling clients and opposing
counsel if he has any relationship at all with a member of the
bench.
"The lawyers don't have a
problem, because they all have the same thing," Mr. Batra said. "No
member of the bar or bench who values their lifelong reputation will
sully their reputation for a case or a client, and that serves to
enhance public confidence."
Mr. Batra said Justice
Huttner is ailing from a heart condition that recently required
surgery. The judge could not be reached for comment. His attorney,
Jerome Karp, was unavailable.
http://www.nylawyer.com/display.php/file=/news/05/07/072705b
Panel Raps
Judge for Keeping Mum on Att'y Pal
By Nancie L. Katz
Daily News Staff Writer
July 27, 2005
For the second time in four
years, the state's judicial watchdog censured a Brooklyn judge -
this time demanding that he retire because he presided over a case
involving a close friend without letting the other side know.
Supreme Court Justice
Richard Huttner is the second jurist to get in trouble with the
state Commission on Judicial Conduct for having a personal
relationship with politically connected lawyer Ravi Batra - and not
telling the opposing attorneys about it.
Huttner has had a "close
social relationship with" Batra since the mid-1990s, the commission
said, and awarded the lawyer 11 lucrative appointments between
1996-1999.
"They have been to each
other's homes, and [he] has attended various of Mr. Batra's family
events," the commission wrote. "They have had ... drinks, lunch and
dinner on numerous occasions."
Nonetheless, since June
2000, while presiding over a case involving Batra, Huttner did not
tell the attorney general's office any of that.
"Even if they did not
discuss the merits of Mr. Batra's case during their out-of-court
meetings, an appearance of impropriety would be inevitable," the
commission said.
But the commission did not
charge that Huttner favored Batra in the case, which was settled.
The commission demanded the
70-year-old jurist step down at the end of the year, citing its 2001
censure against him for using his judicial position to improperly
sway a judge to rule in his co-op's favor in a dispute with a
restaurant. Huttner otherwise could have sought state approval to
stay on until the age of 76.
"The retirement was an
essential element of the commission's agreeing" not to pursue
disciplinary charges against him, said its administrator, Robert
Tembeckjian.
Huttner and his attorney
did not return calls.
Batra declined to address
the specifics of the commission's ruling.
"Every lawyer
and former judge who is now a lawyer is now required to put on the
record any relationship that exists with any party or lawyer or the
court on the record," said Batra. "This will serve to ... to enhance
public confidence."
A Brooklyn Judge, Censured, Is Retiring
The New York Times
July 26, 2005
ALBANY - A Brooklyn judge
has been censured as part of an agreement that calls for him to
retire by end of the year for failing disclose his close
relationship to a politically connected lawyer who appeared before
him, officials said Tuesday.
The judge, Justice Richard
D. Huttner of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, was censured by the
state's Commission on Judicial Conduct for presiding over a case
five years ago without telling any of the parties involved that he
had what the commission called "a close social relationship" with
one of the lawyers involved, Ravi Batra.
Mr. Batra, the lawyer, was
a close associate of Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., the head of
the Brooklyn Democratic Party.
Mr. Batra hired Mr. Norman
to work at his Manhattan law firm, and Mr. Norman put Mr. Batra on a
panel that helped choose judges in Brooklyn.
In the case that led to
Justice Huttner's censure, Mr. Batra represented Mr. Norman's
father, who was closing his home for the mentally ill.
2nd Judge
Censured for Link to Same Attorney
Newsday
by Anthony M. Destefano
July 27, 2005
Judges who are friends with attorney Ravi Batra should best tread
carefully.
For the second time this year, a State Supreme Court justice has
been censured after a close personal friendship with the politically
connected attorney created the appearance of impropriety.
A state judicial watchdog body yesterday recommended that State
Supreme Court Justice Richard D. Huttner of Queens be censured
because he presided over a lawsuit in which Batra, who is a close
friend of the jurist, represented one of the parties.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct said Huttner, 70, agreed to
accept the public censure and retire at the end of the year. As part
of the agreed-upon disposition of the case, Huttner will not apply
for certification to remain as a judge for another two-year term
beyond the age of 70 as would have been his right, the commission
said.
According to a two-page ruling released yesterday, Huttner continued
to socialize with Batra while the attorney appeared before him in
litigation.
"Even if they did not discuss the merits of Mr. Batra's case during
their out-of-court meetings, an appearance of impropriety would be
inevitable," the commission stated, adding that Huttner never
disclosed his social relationship with the attorney to other lawyers
in the case.
The commission noted that Huttner was censured in 2001 for "lending
the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests" in a
lawsuit involving his co-op board.
The co-op issue showed that Huttner "lacks sensitivity to the
special ethical obligations of judges and indicates the need for a
severe sanction," the commission said.
In yesterday's ruling, the commission noted that Batra had received
a number of court appointments from 1996 to 1999.
In April, State Supreme Court Justice Diane A. Lebedeff of Manhattan
was found by the commission to have shown a "glaring insensitivity"
to her obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety by
presiding over a lawsuit brought by her friend Batra.
In a telephone interview with Newsday, Batra said that one of his
adversaries in the litigation, the New York State attorney general's
office, was already on notice that Huttner had given him a court
appointment in a different case. He said the lawsuit in the latest
Huttner matter was settled without the need for a decision by the
judge.
A secretary in Huttner's office in Long Island City said the judge
was on vacation. Jerome Karp, who represented Huttner before the
commission, couldn't be reached for comment.
Judge
Removes Himself From All Criminal Cases
Miami Herald
July 13, 2005
Senior U.S. District Judge
James Lawrence King has removed himself from all criminal cases
because his secretary's husband has been charged in a
marijuana-growing investigation.
King is not a subject of
the probe. He has stopped presiding over criminal cases until the
investigation is completed by federal authorities.
He declined to comment
Tuesday on his temporary removal from the criminal docket, which was
first reported by The Daily Business Review.
His secretary, Sandra Diaz,
came under the scrutiny of federal prosecutors after they discovered
that she passed along copies of public records downloaded from a
court website to her husband, Jorge Diaz, before his arrest on
marijuana conspiracy charges this spring. The online site, known as
PACER, requires a subscription.
Those court-record
printouts dealt with the earlier arrests of two of her husband's
alleged associates.
Federal prosecutors are
investigating whether the judge's secretary was involved in her
husband's alleged criminal activities, which included a ''grow
house'' in Loxahatchee. She has not been charged.
Federal
Judge Skips Criminal
Cases as Cops Target His Secretary
By Dan Christensen
Miami Daily Business Review
July 11, 2005
For the second time in two
months, Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami has
removed himself from all his criminal cases as federal and state
agents have targeted his longtime secretary and her husband in a
drug and money laundering probe.
Federal prosecutors in West
Palm Beach believe that King's secretary, Sandra Diaz, passed copies
of court documents to her husband, Jorge Diaz, shortly before his
April 29 arrest in Key Largo on federal marijuana conspiracy
charges.
In court filings,
prosecutors described the items she passed to her husband as
computer printouts of all court documents regarding the arrests of
two of Jorge Diaz's alleged associates at his marijuana "grow house"
in Loxahatchee, Fla. The printouts allegedly were downloaded from
the online PACER system, which is publicly accessible to
subscribers.
In an interview June 8,
Judge King said his initial recusal on May 16 had nothing to do with
rumored legal difficulties of a member of his staff. King
acknowledged that a relative of that staffer had been indicted on
federal charges but he would not disclose the circumstances or
further identify the individuals.
There is no indication that
the government suspects King of any wrongdoing. Neither King --
who's 77 and formerly served as chief judge of the Southern District
of Florida -- nor current Chief Judge William J. Zloch returned
calls for comment last week. Miami solo practitioner Mario S. Cano
represents Sandra Diaz. He said Diaz would not comment on the
matter.
Observers say King's
decision to abandon his entire criminal docket twice in such a short
period of time is extraordinary. "I'm unfamiliar with any equivalent
situation ever occurring," said Federal Public Defender Kathleen
Williams, who remains puzzled by King's actions.
Meanwhile, the 11th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta last week declined to prohibit
the type of direct case transfers between judges that occurred after
King removed himself from his criminal cases the first time in May.
The transfers from King to U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore were
done according to an unpublished and previously undisclosed Local
Policy Manual. But the transfers contravened published Local Rules.
The 11th Circuit, without
comment, denied a petition for a writ of mandamus by Miami attorneys
Howard and Scott Srebnick that sought to prohibit judges in the
Southern District from using the unpublished court rule to reassign
cases to each other.
Lawyers Surprised and Upset
Many South Florida lawyers
were surprised and upset when the Daily Business Review first
reported on the unpublished manual last month, and they demanded
that the Southern District of Florida publicly disclose the manual.
The court has refused to do so.
The unpublished rule
contravenes published Local Rules, which provides for the blind and
random assignment of cases by the federal court clerk. Under the
published Local Rules, recusing judges may not influence the
selection of their successors.
Howard Srebnick is
defending former Hamilton Bank chief Eduardo Masferrer in his fraud
and conspiracy case. King transferred Masferrer's case directly to
Moore on May 16 when King initially recused himself from all 21 of
his criminal cases. That spurred Srebnick to ask Moore to send all
those cases to the clerk for random reassignment.
In seeking to justify the
direct transfer, Moore, in a written order, cited a rule in the
Local Policy Manual that he said gave judges the authority to
"confer and directly transfer all or any part of a case on the
judge's docket to any consenting judge."
Moore did not rule and sent
the matter to Chief Judge Zloch for a final decision. On June 9,
Zloch ruled that King's original recusal was actually not a recusal.
Zloch wrote that "it is clear that said order was intended to be an
order of transfer" under the Local Policy Manual. He did not explain
how that was made clear to him.
The Srebnick brothers
appealed. Among other things, they attacked what they called the
district court's "disregard of the published Local Rules in favor an
unpublished policy manual.
In an interview, Howard
Srebnick said he was disappointed in the 11th Circuit's decision,
contending that public knowledge of the investigation of King's
secretary might have made a difference in the outcome. "Perhaps the
appellate court would have ruled differently had these circumstances
been disclosed," said Srebnick, a partner at Black Srebnick &
Kornspan of Miami.
Three weeks after
transferring his cases to Moore, King decided to start taking
criminal case assignments again.
But on June 16, King
reversed course again when he asked Chief Judge Zloch to reassign
all his criminal cases. King's "oral request" prompted Zloch to
write an administrative order that parceled out King's new criminal
docket at random. At least eight of King's cases were assigned to
six different judges.
Pot Supply Store
After King first dropped
his criminal docket in May, courthouse sources identified his
secretary, Sandra Diaz, as the member of King's staff whose husband
was under investigation. Sources described her as a "wonderful
person" who has worked as King's secretary for about a decade.
On May 13, a federal grand
jury in Miami indicted her 38-year-old husband, Jorge, twice on drug
charges. In the first case, Diaz was charged with conspiring with an
acquaintance, Tommy Rodriguez, to possess and distribute marijuana
grown at the Loxahatchee house and at a residence in Royal Palm
Beach. In the second case, the indictment says Diaz conspired with
his cousin, Pedro Correa, 31, "to manufacture with intent to
distribute" marijuana at the home in Royal Palm Beach.
Diaz faces up to 40 years
in prison and a $2 million fine if convicted. His attorney, Stuart
Adelstein of Adelstein & Matters in Miami, did not return telephone
calls seeking comment.
A spokeswoman for interim
U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta also declined to comment.
But court records say the
investigation began when state agents with a money laundering task
force placed under surveillance Gold Coast Hydroponics, a Fort
Lauderdale store "known to supply growers of hydroponic plants,
including marijuana."
A truck registered to Jorge
Diaz was spotted parked there. Agents used Florida Power & Light
records to identify the house in Loxahatchee that Diaz owned, and
conducted "trash pulls" that yielded small amounts of marijuana on
clothing and dryer lint.
Agents armed with a search
warrant raided the home on 78th Place North on April 12. Rodriguez
and his girlfriend, Kyrenia Blanco, were arrested and quickly
cooperated. Rodriguez implicated Diaz, and gave agents enough to
search a second grow house, where more than 100 marijuana plants
were seized.
After further
investigation, Diaz and Correa were arrested April 29. Diaz was
located by agents who tailed his wife, Sandra. He was nabbed at his
in-laws' mobile home in Key Largo.
Money Laundering Probe
Court records say agents
found in Diaz's possession "PACER printouts of all the documents
relating to the arrests of Rodriguez and Blanco, documents that were
believed to have been obtained by his wife, Sandra Diaz." Also found
was a carbon copy of a $25,000 cashier's check from the couple's
joint account, made payable to an attorney who represented Rodriguez
and Blanco.
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Linnea R. Johnson in West Palm Beach ordered Jorge Diaz jailed as a
flight risk and a danger to the community. He appealed the order to
Judge Zloch.
In a June 1 response to the
appeal, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana in West Palm
Beach disclosed that Sandra Diaz also was under investigation.
"Diaz's wife has recently
been served with a 'target letter,' informing her that she is the
target of a grand jury investigation involving charges of money
laundering, making false statements to law enforcement and narcotics
manufacturing and distributing," Villafana said.
Zloch dismissed Diaz's
attempt to get out of jail. Five days later, Zloch recused himself
from Diaz's case without explanation. The clerk reassigned the case
to U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in Fort Lauderdale.
http://www.nylawyer.com/display.php/file=/news/05/07/071105d
|
Judge
Knocked off Her High Court
By Greg B. Smith
New York Daily News
May 3, 2005
A Manhattan judge
scolded for handling a lawsuit brought by a personal friend has
been demoted to a lower court, her attorney said yesterday.
Acting Supreme Court
Justice Diane Lebedeff was reassigned to Civil Court in the
weeks after she was censured by the state Commission on Judicial
Conduct.
Last month, the
commission chastised Lebedeff for hearing a multimillion-dollar
suit filed by her friend Ravi Batra against a Brooklyn furniture
store.
Batra, who said he was
injured falling out of a chair sold by the store, sought $80
million, and eventually settled for $225,000 after his case was
transferred to another judge.
The commission found
that Lebedeff, 64, never disclosed her ties to Batra in the six
years she presided over his suit. During that time she had
dinner with him and they exchanged gifts with each other's
families.
This was her second
infraction. In 2003, she was criticized for awarding a lucrative
fiduciary monitorship to her personal accountant.
Since the most recent
censure was made public April 7, Chief Administrative Judge
Jonathan Lippman reassigned Lebedeff from her $136,000-a-year
job as an acting Supreme Court justice to the less prestigious,
$125,000-a-year Civil Court job.
Yesterday, Lebedeff
declined comment, but her lawyer, Benjamin Rabinowitz, said,
"What Judge Lippman decided was appropriate. Judge Lebedeff is a
fine judge and will continue to do her best as a judge, whether
it's in Civil or Supreme [Court]."
Lebedeff
was first elected to Civil Court in 1983 and appointed an acting
Supreme Court justice in 1988.
Censured NY Judge Ousted From Supreme Court
By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
May 3, 2005
Three-term Civil Court
Judge Diane A. Lebedeff, who has been censured by the state
Commission on Judicial Conduct twice in the last two years, has
been stripped of her acting Supreme Court justice title and
reassigned to Civil Court.
Judge Lebedeff has been
an acting Supreme Court justice since 1988. Chief Administrative
Judge Jonathan Lippman reassigned her to the Civil Court
starting yesterday.
David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court
Administration, said he could not comment on judicial
assignments.
Judge Lebedeff's lawyer, Ben A. Rubinowitz of Gair, Gair &
Conason, said that she "accepts her new assignment and will
continue to do what she does best which is being a wonderful
judge."
Just over 100 lower court judges in the state have been assigned
as acting Supreme Court justices. They are rarely sent back to
the court where they were originally elected or appointed, and
when they are, the re-assignment is widely viewed as a demotion.
Acting Supreme Court justices are paid the same annual salary as
elected justices, $136,700. Civil Court judges' earn $125,600 a
year.
Justice Lebedeff's Supreme Court caseload has been reassigned to
Justices Carole R. Edmead and Edward H. Lehner.
Last month, the conduct commission censured Judge Lebedeff for
failing to reveal that she had "a significant social and
professional relationship" with a plaintiff in a personal injury
case before her.
The commission faulted her for excusing the defense lawyers on
approximately five occasions so she could "gossip" and engage in
other conversation unrelated to the litigation with the
plaintiff in the case, lawyer Ravi Batra, who was representing
himself.
The commission also noted Judge Lebedeff had appointed Mr. Batra
to a guardianship post for which he was paid $84,000.
Mr. Batra, who was previously the vice ch | |