Should public employees, and especially former judges, be allowed to use their public office as a sales pitch for after-retirement businesses? The case of the un-retireable U.S. Magistrate Frank Maas

I have been repeatedly receiving an e-mail advertisements of services of the allegedly retired U.S. magistrate judge Frank Maas:

I consider it completely inappropriate that, upon retirement, the judge, or an organization that "welcomes" a judge, aggressively advertises the former judgeship as a selling point.

President-elect Donald J. Trump just announced that he is going to ban lobbying by public officials for 5 years after they left their public jobs.  My opinion, as a citizen and taxpayer, is that the ban should be permanent, and should also relate to using the former public position in advertising - like "retired" Judge Maas is doing.

And, an official website announced that Judge Maas has retired as of September 29, 2016.

But, that official website is not the court where Judge Maas worked, and not the site where people researching Judge Maas' background will first go.

They will first visit the site of the court where Judge Maas allegedly retired from.

And, on that website, Judge Maas is listed as a presently acting judge, as of today, here and here.

As a visitor of the court's website, I am entitled to believe what it says.

It says that Judge Frank Maas is the CURRENT - not retired - magistrate of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

And that is a big problem - because a judge may not have a side job, like JAMS is advertising for Judge Frank Maas now, aggressively offering his services to me personally, in an e-mail, as

• mediator,
• arbitrator,
• special master,
• discovery referee in
• business/commercial construction,
• employment,
• insurance,
• personal injury/mass torts,
• real property, and
• securities "matters"

Moreover, Judge Maas states on his attorney registration website, as of today, that he is still employed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:

And that is,

• while Judge Maas allegedly retired since September 29, 2016,
• while New York attorney disciplinary rules require attorneys to reflect their new employment within 30 days of any changes - and it has been more than 30 days by now, and since
• Judge Maas announces on his LinkedIn website that he works as a mediator with JAMS since October of 2016.

So, the court system (but not the SDNY court) claims that Judge Maas retired on September 29, 2016:





Once again, Judge Maas at the very same time claims that he started to work as an arbitrator in October of 2016 - for purposes of income and profit from business.

And, Judge Maas apparently cannot care less about attorney disciplinary rules - being a former judge who is untouchable by such rules - and continues to announce on his attorney registration site, as of today, that he is still a judge at SDNY court.



In New York, attorneys are allowed to update their registration information instantly, online.  Apparently, Judge Maas has no time to comply with attorney disciplinary rules, being, as a former judge, above the law and feeling that compliance with such rules is unnecessary.

That is not the only problem that I have, as a taxpayer, with Judge Maas's contradictory employment and business information.

The problems that I have, as a taxpayer and citizen, with Judge Maas' advertisement is:

1. that he is still listed on SDNY website as an acting magistrate judge;
2. that he considers it more important to himself to instantly list himself as a mediator, for business purposes, online on his LinkedIn account, but is too lazy to comply with attorney registration rules, also online, which constitutes, taken together, false advertisement and advertisement of himself as a mediator and at the same time as a judge whose services can be bought; disdain to the law concerning himself is alarming for a former prosecutor, a former magistrate judge and the current mediator, arbitrator and "special master";
3. that Judge Maas who, over 40 years of his career as a lawyer, worked only 8 years in private practice, and was employed, according to his own statements on his LinkedIn account:
1. for 5.5 years by New York City; and
2. for 24 years for the federal government, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and a federal magistrate judge - is drawing a large retirement, while at the same time working as an arbitrator.

I believe that public officials should not be paid retirement while they are gainfully employed after official retirement from a public job.

If they retire - they must retire completely.

Moreover, public employees absolutely should not be allowed to use their prior public jobs as a sales pitch - as Judge Maas is doing on his LinkedIn account and as his employer or contracting source the JAMS does in unsolicited advertisements.