Judging The Judicial Conduct Chairman
By HENRY STERN, Queens Tribune, June 2, 2005
LINKAn ethical issue has been raised with regard to letters sent by the chair of the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct soliciting funds for Leslie Crocker Snyder, an attorney who is challenging Manahattan DA Robert M. Morgenthau in the September Democratic primary.
The Commission is an 11-member body, chosen by the governor, the chief judge, and legislative leaders. Its members serve without pay, part-time, to review complaints about judicial corruption or other misbehavior, and decide whether punitive action is warranted.
Chairman Lawrence Goldman wrote a form letter which he sent to many of his professional colleagues, asking them to contribute to Ms. Snyder's campaign. One of the letters went to Thomas Liotti, who is a criminal defense lawyer and part-time town justice in Westbury, in Nassau County.
Judges are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns, except their own, so sending that letter was inappropriate. But that is a relatively minor infraction, although Liotti once had a matter before the Commission on Judicial Conduct, in which he was a complainant rather than a defendant. Goldman's solicitation came to public attention when Liotti complained about it. Goldman concedes that writing Liotti was an error, he did not remember that the man was a part-time judge.
Goldman is a state official who reviews the conduct of judges and participates in deciding whether they should be removed from the bench. For him to write letters soliciting money from lawyers to elect a district attorney is not illegal, but questions arise as to its propriety and the impression it may convey. In some states, a judicial conduct officer cannot be involved in any judicial campaign, but tolerant New York is not among them.
The problem of participation in partisan politics piques one's interest in Goldman's record as a commissioner. His solicitation on behalf of Snyder, a former judge who previously rewarded him with judicial patronage, raises issues as to what kind of a commissioner he has been.
In the vernacular applied to judges, Goldman is much more "free 'em" than "fry 'em." In a number of recent cases before the Commission, Goldman has shown himself to be particularly merciful in dealing with judicial misconduct. Although he concurs in findings of guilt, he is extremely reluctant to remove a judge, which is the only sanction the Commission can impose that goes beyond a slap on the wrist.
For example, Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg gave over $9 million dollars in fees from 475 estates to his Manhattan neighbor and Brooklyn Law School buddy, Louis Rosenthal. In many of these cases, the fees the judge allowed were exorbitant. In 5½ years, Rosenthal never submitted the affidavit required by law with an application for fees. His requests for payment were handwritten on Post-It notes attached to the case file. They were always approved by Surrogate Feinberg.
When the Commission on Judicial Conduct voted to remove Feinberg as Kings County Surrogate, Goldman wrote a lengthy dissent taking the position that the penalty was excessive.
Consider the case of Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason, who took money from escrow accounts, both as a lawyer and as a judge. Mason was removed from the bench in 2002, with Goldman dissenting. The dismissal was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Mason was subsequently disbarred for this misconduct.
An unusual case, in that it did not involve greed, was decided in 2004. Henry Bauer, a city court judge in Troy, when dealing with minor offenses, including riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, imposed bail of $25,000 on young people who were not represented by counsel. After being remanded to jail if they pleaded guilty, they were sentenced to time served and released. If they pleaded not guilty, they would be sent back to jail until their case could be heard. The original offense in many of these cases was not punishable by a jail term. The Commission voted to remove Judge Bauer for numerous instances of the unusual practice of instant incarceration for minor offenses. Goldman dissented.
Although he chairs the commission, he appears to be in substantial disagreement with many of the other Commissioners, who insist on higher standards of judicial conduct.
It is Goldman's judgment in these cases which we find puzzling. Perhaps over his many years on the Commission, he has become more tolerant of judicial misbehavior, and more in sync with Albany's laissez-faire attitude with regard to ethical standards. If that is the case, he may not be the most suitable person in the State of New York to chair its Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Starquest@NYCivic.org
NY State Committee on Judicial ConductCENTER for JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY, INC.
Tel. (914) 421-1200 E-Mail: judgewatch@aol.com
Fax (914) 428-4994 Web site: www.judgewatch.org
Elena Ruth Sassower, Coordinator
BY HAND
March 3, 2000
New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
801 Second Avenue
New York, New York 10017
ATT: Gerald Stern, Administrator and Counsel
RE: Judicial misconduct complaint against Acting Supreme Court Justice William A. Wetzel and Administrative Judge Stephen G. Crane for their official misconduct in Elena Ruth Sassower, Coordinator of the Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc., acting pro bono publico v. Commission on Judicial Conduct of the State of New York (NY Co. #99-108551)
Dear Mr. Stern:
This formal judicial misconduct complaint follows up CJA's February 7, 2000 notice to you and your counsel, the State Attorney General, of your ethical and professional duty to take corrective steps to protect the public from the wilful subversion of the judicial process in the above-entitled Article 78 proceeding by Acting Supreme Court Justice William Wetzel, aided and abetted by Administrative Judge Stephen Crane.
Such notice alerted you to the fact that Justice Wetzel had "thrown" that important case by a fraudulent judicial decision, "brazenly falsifying and fabricating the Article 78 record in EVERY material respect" and that Administrative Judge Crane, who had twice interfered with random assignment of the case, the second time to "steer" it to Justice Wetzel, had failed to respond to the Article 78 petitioner's request as to the basis for his having done so, including his awareness of the facts pertaining to Justice Wetzel's disqualification set forth in her December 2, 1999 application for his recusal.
NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct
The knowing and deliberate misconduct of each of these judges – of which the Commission and the Attorney General are direct beneficiaries -- is particularized by CJA's 35-page letter to the Governor, dated February 23, 2000, to which the Commission is an indicated recipient. A copy is enclosed.
Pursuant to Judiciary Law §44.2, the Commission may institute a sua sponte complaint against Justices Wetzel and Crane. However, CJA is not relying on the
Commission's initiative, but hereby initiates its own complaint, pursuant to Judiciary Law §44.1, based on the fact-specific presentation in the February 23, 2000 letter.
Under Judiciary Law §44.1, the Commission has a mandatory investigative duty, absent a determination that the complaint "on its face lacks merit". CJA's judicial misconduct complaint against Justices Wetzel and Crane is not only facially-meritorious, but substantiated by the record in Elena Ruth Sassower v. Commission, incorporated herein by reference. The record establishes their "misconduct in office" "prejudicial to the administration of justice" (NYS Constitution, Article 6, §22(a); Judiciary Law §44.1. This includes their flagrant violation of §100.3E and §100.3F of the Chief Administrator's Rules Governing Judicial Conduct pertaining to judicial disqualification and disclosure and of §100.3D pertaining to a judge's mandatory "Disciplinary responsibilities". These mandatory "disciplinary responsibilities" were triggered by the unrestrained defense fraud of the Attorney General on behalf of the Commission, constituting the crimes of, inter alia, "perjury, filing of false instruments, conspiracy, obstruction of the administration of justice, and official misconduct" – for which the Article 78 petitioner repeatedly documented her entitlement to disciplinary and criminal referral of both the Attorney General and the Commission. The record before Justices Wetzel and Crane showed that such defense fraud extended to two additional Article 78 proceedings against the Commission – also defended by the Attorney General -- Doris L. Sassower v. Commission on Judicial Conduct of the State of New York (NY Co. #95-109141) and Michael Mantell v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (NY Co. #99-108655), both covered-up by fraudulent decisions of Supreme Court/New York County judges, as detailed in fact-specific analyses of the decisions, which were part of the record.
The Commission already has in its possession a copy of the record of Elena Ruth Sassower v. Commission. The Article 78 petitioner provided it to the Commission throughout the course of the litigation so that the Commission could see for itself the magnitude of the Attorney General's defense fraud – and disavow his false and deceitful advocacy on its behalf. This included providing the Commission with a copy of her December 9, 1999 letter to Justice Wetzel detailing the Attorney General's attempt to perpetrate "a fraud upon the Court – and through it, upon the public" in connection with her December 2, 1999 application for his recusal and for disclosure.
The most cursory investigation of the record in Elena Ruth Sassower v. Commission will establish that the Commission is the beneficiary of fraudulent judicial decisions in this and in the other two Article 78 proceedings and that its defense in all three cases was predicated on litigation fraud. As a consequence, the Commission has a self-interest in dismissing, without investigation, this facially-meritorious complaint – or, as it did with CJA's February 3, 1999 judicial misconduct complaint against Appellate Division, Second Department Justice Daniel Joy, a Commission member, in neither acknowledging nor determining it. Therefore, please advise what steps the Commission will take to ensure that this facially-meritorious, fully-documented complaint is fairly and impartially determined. Such steps might reasonably include joining in CJA's request to the Governor for the appointment of a special prosecutor or an investigative commission. This request is set forth in the conclusion of CJA's February 23, 2000 letter to him (at pp. 32-35). It might also reasonably include joining in CJA's request to Chief Judge Judith Kaye for designation of a Special Inspector General, which is set forth in CJA's letter to her of today's date – a copy of which is enclosed.
Unless the Commission would be willing to refer this judicial misconduct complaint against Justice Wetzel and Crane to the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Justice Department's Criminal Division , there appears to be no alternative to the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct March 3, 2000
establishment of an independent investigative body since the Attorney General, the Manhattan District Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York -- each of whom have criminal jurisdiction over Justices Wetzel and Crane for conduct which here rises to a criminal level -- suffer from disabling conflicts-of-interest. This is highlighted by CJA's February 25, 2000 memorandum-notice, transmitting to them, as well as to the New York State Ethics Commission, copies of CJA's February 23, 2000 letter to the Governor. A copy of that notice, to which the Commission is an indicated recipient, is also enclosed.
As always, you may be assured of our complete cooperation in assisting the Commission meet its constitutional and statutory duty to the People of this State to root out corruption among its judges.
Yours for a quality judiciary,
ELENA RUTH SASSOWER, Coordinator
Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA)
Tighten rules for those
who judge judges Richard Schwartz, Daily News, May 11, 2005
LINK Time for some major cleanup work at the state panel that judges judges. I speak of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, the body responsible for disciplining judges.
Clubby relationships gnaw at the commission's integrity to the point that it simply can't be trusted. Consider: Until a year ago, the panel's chairman was Henry Berger, a politically wired election lawyer whose clients were involved in picking judges, funding judges, or both. In addition, Berger had once served on committees that screened judicial candidates for the Democratic Party and the city Bar Association.
And, all the while, he actively practiced law before the state bench. It was an unseemly tangle of conflicts that damaged the health of the commission.
This week comes news that the commission's current chairman, Lawrence Goldman, may be just as judgment-challenged as Berger. The problem? Goldman, a criminal defense lawyer, has joined the campaign finance committee of former judge Leslie Crocker Snyder, who formally announced at a big fund-raiser Tuesday that she's challenging Robert Morgenthau for the Democratic nod for Manhattan district attorney.
Goldman, who has contributed $2,100 to Snyder and has signed on to raise another $10,000, was a vice chairman for her bash. Another commission member, lawyer Richard Emery, is also raising money for Snyder.
The trouble is that a panelist's involvement in a political campaign could leave the commission looking less than impartial. District attorneys, for instance, bring complaints against judges to the commission, which is supposed to be impartial. But how would a judge have faith in that impartiality if the complaining DA is politically tied to individual commissioners?
"If Snyder wins, how in the world are Goldman and Emery going to appear to be fair on any complaint from the DA's office involving any judge who hears criminal cases in Manhattan?" said one court insider.
"Don't forget that all of a DA's work is done before judges. These two guys have no business being involved in this kind of campaign. It really smells."
Incredibly, the commission has no rules regarding its members' political activities.
Snyder was not troubled by the potential conflicts that Goldman and Emery bring to her campaign. They have "a First Amendment right to do this," she said. She'd be well advised to drop them from her campaign.
When confronted with the issue, Goldman, a longtime friend of Snyder's, replied, "I didn't give great thought on whether or not to be involved in [Snyder's campaign] .... Maybe in an ideal world this shouldn't happen."
Henry Stern, head of good-government group New York Civic, said it better: "You're either a player or an umpire. You can't be both."
In other words, until the commission disposes of its conflicts and embraces sensible rules of behavior, it will never be able to assure us of a well-functioning judiciary.
Originally published on May 11, 2005
June 5, 2005
Injudicious ConductLINKThe job of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is to rule on ethical complaints against state judges. Its 11 members are therefore duty-bound to avoid both real and apparent conflicts of interest by refraining from partisan political activities and by refusing lucrative assignments from members of the bench. But some committee members have behaved sloppily, suggesting the need for written rules.
The issue arises because two commission members, Lawrence Goldman, the panel's chairman, and Richard Emery, are among the lawyers helping to raise money for Leslie Crocker Snyder, the former State Supreme Court justice who is challenging District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in Manhattan's Democratic primary in September. While the commission's jurisdiction does not extend to policing the ethical conduct of district attorneys, district attorneys sometimes refer complaints about judges to the panel. A village judge in Westbury was dismayed when he received a fundraising appeal signed by Mr. Goldman, who has since apologized.
More broadly, the commission's quasi-judicial role, which obliges it to rule on cases involving judges in both parties, is incompatible with partisan politics. That the commission has traditionally allowed it's non-judge members to be politically active is not a persuasive reason for perpetuating the practice. Current members who wish to continue being political players should do the public a favor and resign.
There is a side issue involving Mr. Goldman. The Daily News and The Village Voice have both reported that Mr. Goldman, a prominent criminal defense lawyer, accepted an assignment from Justice Snyder in 2001 to serve as a special master in a case involving the restitution of $11 million to victims of stock fraud. Mr. Goldman notes that Justice Snyder is an old friend of his, and that the $200,000 in fees he is applying for, a portion of which Justice Snyder approved before stepping down from the bench, is considerably less than the amount to which he is entitled by law.
That misses the point. Commission members should not be accepting well-paying discretionary assignments from the same judges whose ethics they are charged with reviewing. No rule prevented Mr. Goldman from accepting Justice Snyder's assignment, and no one disputes that he did good work. But commissioners need to be sensitive to perceptions, not just statutory mandates.
