Engoron says he won’t recuse from Trump civil fraud case

The judge who oversaw former President Trump’s civil fraud trial on Thursday declined to recuse himself from the case over allegations he improperly discussed it with an outside party. 

Judge Arthur Engoron said that he is “supremely confident” in his ability to remain impartial and refuted claims by the former president and his lawyers that the judge soiled his credibility during an impromptu conversation with a high-profile New York real estate lawyer. 

“As no grounds for mandatory recusal exist here, it is up to me and my conscience to determine whether this 90-second, unsolicited diatribe about a law with which I was fully familiar and in which I was fully immersed, by a non-party and non-expert who conveyed no facts, in any way affected my adjudication of a dispute over which I had presided for three and a half years, during which time I had already issued several dispositive decisions,” Engoron wrote in an 8-page ruling. “I hereby definitively state that it did not.” 

On Feb. 16, the day Engoron handed down his multimillion-dollar judgment against Trump and his business, New York lawyer Adam Leitman Bailey said in an interview with NBC New York that he approached the judge about three weeks prior to give unsolicited advice about the case.  

Bailey told the outlet that he approached Engoron to let the judge know “what I think and why” so the judge could “get it right.”

The lawyer later said “the word ‘Donald Trump’” was never mentioned in their conversation, but when asked by NBC New York if it was clear they were discussing the former president’s case, he replied, “Well, obviously we weren’t talking about the Mets.”  

Citing the conversation, Trump’s attorneys last month demanded the judge recuse from the case, suggesting his actions were “fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities attendant to donning the black robe and sitting in judgment.”  

They sought to subpoena Bailey for information regarding the conversation, which Engoron allowed in part but narrowed to avoid an “improper wholesale fishing expedition” by the former president’s legal team. The Hill has requested comment from Trump’s attorneys.  

“I did not initiate, welcome, encourage, engage in, or learn from, much less enjoy, Bailey's tirade,” Engoron wrote. “I did not base any part of any of my rulings on it, as Bailey has outlandishly, mistakenly, and defamatorily claimed." 

The judge further rebuked Bailey as attempting to “burnish his reputation as someone who could influence judges,” which he railed against as unethical and “possibly illegal.” 

Bailey previously told The Hill that he believed his remarks to NBC New York were “off the record” and that he only discussed with Engoron a summary judgment ruling the judge made in September, finding Trump and his co-defendants liable for fraud.  

Engoron ruled in February that Trump, the Trump Organization and top executives conspired to alter the former president’s net worth for tax and insurance benefits. He ordered them to pay a combined $464 million, plus interest. Trump has appealed the ruling.