Trump fraud judge Arthur Engoron is under investigation for allegedly receiving unsolicited advice from a top lawyer before imposing a $454 million fine on the former president

• Engoron asked former President Donald Trump to pay $454 million in March
• Adam Leitman Bailey said he spoke with Engoron three weeks before the sentencing
• He said he was not a fan of Trump and encouraged Engoron to “do it right.”

A prominent New York real estate attorney has reportedly led New York State to investigate Judge Arthur Engoron after he alleged he gave the judge unsolicited advice.

Engoron in March ordered former President Donald Trump to pay a $454 million judgment after 30 lenders turned him away.

Trump – who frequently called Engoron “crazy” and “corrupt” – posted a $175 million bond ahead of a deadline to avoid asset seizure as he appealed the ruling.

Adam Leitman Bailey, a New York real estate attorney, said publicly at the time of the sentencing that he had spoken to Judge Engoron three weeks before the sentencing and told him to “get it right.”

A spokesman for Engoron denied the story and said he was “completely uninfluenced” by Bailey, but the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is reportedly looking into whether he broke any rules, according to NBC New York.

Bailey said in mid-February, on the day of the verdict, that he had spoken to Engoron three weeks earlier.

“I saw him in the corner (in the courthouse) and said to my client, ‘I have to go.’ And I went over and we started talking… I wanted him to know what I was thinking and why… I really want him to get it right.”

Bailey maintains he is not a fan of Trump and has no connection to the lawsuits or cases against the president, but says he has argued before Engoron “hundreds of times.”

He claims he instructed Engoron to correct the ruling because a ruling imposing such a large fine on Trump could harm New York’s economy.

Bailey even claimed that Engoron “had a lot of questions about specific cases” when they spoke.

Engoron, through a spokesman, has vehemently denied any impropriety.

“No one-sided conversation on this matter took place between Judge Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person.” “The decision that Judge Engoron issued on February 16 was his sole decision, was thoroughly considered and was not influenced at all by that person said Al Baker

“Ex parte” refers to a conversation between a lawyer and a judge in which no other personnel involved in a case are present.

“A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their attorneys,” states the New York State Rules of Judicial Conduct .

There is an exception for seeking “advice from a disinterested expert.”

The state Commission on Judicial Conduct will examine whether Engoron violated any rules, according to several sources familiar with the case.

Christopher Kise, who worked on Trump’s defense team and was a frequent critic of Engoron, says if the allegations are true, it calls the entire case into question.

“The code sees no exception for ‘Well, that was a small conversation,’ or ‘Well, it didn’t really affect me,’ or ‘Well, that wasn’t something I found significant as a judge,'” Kise said. ‘NO. The code is very clear.’

Bailey said in a follow-up interview that while Trump’s name was not mentioned, “we obviously didn’t talk about the Mets.”

The investigation could take months to over a year.

Trump posted a $175 million bond in his New York civil fraud trial in April, halting collections of the more than $454 million he owes.

The bail posted also prevents the state from seizing his assets to pay off debts while he appeals his inflated corporate values ​​case, a court filing said.

A New York appeals court had given the former president 10 days to deposit the money after a panel of judges agreed last month to reduce the amount needed to halt enforcement.

The bail that Trump is now posting with the court is essentially a placeholder intended to guarantee payment if the verdict is upheld.

In this case, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024 will have to pay the entire amount to the state, which grows with daily interest.

If Trump wins, he will not have to pay the state anything and will receive back the money he has already paid.

Until the appeals court intervened and reduced the required bail, New York Attorney General Letitia James was poised to make efforts to enforce the ruling, perhaps by seizing some of Trump’s key properties.

James, a Democrat, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the state.

She had said she would begin seizing properties if Trump failed to implement a $454 million court ruling from his New York fraud trial against him by then – hinting that Trump’s prized Art Deco Skyscraper 40 Wall Street could be in sight.

She also appears to be eyeing Trump’s Westchester Golf Club and the Seven Springs estate, and has recorded judgments in Westchester County.

The former president seethed online at the prospect of the state taking action against him. He wrote a series of fundraising appeals urging New York to “keep your dirty hands off Trump Tower.”

The court ruled after Trump’s lawyers complained that it was “virtually impossible” to get an insurer to sign a guarantee for the $454 million he owed, plus interest.

Trump is fighting to overturn a judge’s Feb. 16 finding that he lied about his wealth while promoting the real estate empire that made him a star and the presidency.