As I mentioned in my previous blog post, in his State of the Judiciary address, Judge Lippman failed to address glaring problems pertaining to the New York State judiciary that cause and contribute to the "justice gap" that exists at this time.
The only issue that Judge Lippman was interested in was raising pay for judges.
Yet, Judge Lippman made excessive appeals for reforms to one of the two other branches of the government - the Legislative branch.
Judge Lippman appealed to the Legislature to reform this and that, while not trying to reform a damn thing about his own (very) filthy stable, where he could do that, simply by changing court rules of recusal and rules requiring judges to publish their financial reports and family trees (at least to litigants, on conditions of confidentiality, if necessary, as to the rest of the public, but at least allowing litigants to verify for themselves whether a factfinding judge is or is not disqualified from the case).
It is easy to deflect your own problems by pointing into out that your neighbor (the Legislature) did not do his job properly.
But Lippman has enough of his own problems with the judiciary to clean up.
If Lippman does not see those problems and considers New York judiciary "spectacular" and "the absolute best" in the country, as he did in his State of the Judiciary 2015 address, maybe Lippman is not professionally competent for his job as the overseer of the New York court system, and should be taken off that job now, not waiting for his retirement at the end of this year that will not come a second too soon.
Friday, February 20, 2015
New York State of the Judiciary 2015 address on the state of the judiciary - New York needs the best judges money can buy
In his State of the Judiciary 2015 address made on February 17, 2015, the Chief Judge of the State of New York Jonathan Lippman addressed - predictably - issues pertaining to the judiciary.
Which issues did Judge Lippman, part of the judiciary, address?
The ONLY issue (in Judge Lippman's mind) pertaining to the judiciary that needed to be addressed in his "State of the Judiciary" address was raising judicial salaries.
At this time, judicial salaries at at the "meager" $152,000 per year for the County judge and at the no less meager $174,000 for the Supreme Court justice this year. I use the word "meager" because that same word was used by the Supreme Court judge Kevin Dowd in a court proceeding in front of an indigent party when the judge explained to that party that he, Judge Dowd, has the authority, in exchange for the "meager bucks that he is being paid by the state, to decide issues that the litigant was raising.
Judge Dowd recused from that case after a complaint was filed against him, but not before he abused that indigent party some more.
Well, back to the "meager" pay of judges.
Once again, that was the ONLY issue pertaining to the state's judiciary that Judge Lippman believed necessary to address.
Not the recusal reform - where judges are considered "arbiters of their own recusal", even though the standard for recusal is from the point of view of OBJECTIVE reasonable DISINTERESTED OBSERVER, and the judge sought to be recused is neither an observer (he/she is a participant), nor is the judge disinterested (when his own integrity or impartiality are being challenged), nor can he/she be deemed by any stretch of imagination, objective, for the same reasons.
The objective for recusal in the first place is to ensure the litigants' constitutional right of access to court, and the litigants' constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal (court).
Those constitutional rights may not be subject to judicial "discretion", they must answer to strict rules, and in New York it is not so.
It is difficult, if at all possible nowadays to find an attorney who would be brave (or suicidal) enough to make a motion to recuse.
It should be prohibited for judges to sanction attorneys for making motions to recuse against them due to obvious conflicts of interest and because such motions are seeking to ensure a constitutional right for attorneys' clients, yet, judges in New York rain such sanctions on attorneys who dared to make such motions left and right - and turn attorneys into the disciplinary committees for further sanctions.
Lippman did not touch upon the practically non-existent system of judicial discipline.
Of course, Lippman knows just how non-existent the system of judicial discipline is since he personally invited to his confirmation hearing the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct's counsel Robert Tembeckjian while there was no public notice issued for such hearings, and while a complaint against Lippman was pending in front of the Commission at that time.
The Commission has long become a shredder for complaints against judges, starting with the County/Family court level.
The Commission needs to be disbanded, and a transparent and effective system of discipline needs to be established.
To demonstrate just how corrupt and ineffective the Commission is, New York State needs to do just one thing - open the records of complaints against judges, and of answers to those complaints (if the Commission even has such an archive), and to provide copies of those records in the judicial directory, against the names of the judges complained about.
Since complaints are about court cases, the public will then be able to investigate whether conduct complained of actually occurred and is reflected in the record - many times it is - and see for itself whether complaints were dismissed improperly.
At this time, such statistics is unavailable to the public since proceedings against judges are secret.
Lippman also did not cover the burning issue of judicial corruption or, if not corruption, appearance of inappropriate behavior.
In federal courts, judges at least started to begin to pay lip service to the fact that there may be a problem in judges attending private seminars, and judges are required to publicly disclose such attendance.
In New York, it is impossible to get information:
- if a certain judge participated in any social functions/seminars sponsored, directly or indirectly, by attorneys, and where the judge had an opportunity for an ex parte communication with such attorneys;
- whether the judge participated or "served" or "serves" presently on any of the countless "Boards", "Councils", "Programs", "Projects", "Trusts", etc. where participating attorneys have an unlimited opportunity for ex parte communications with judges;
- whether the judge or judge's relatives have social networking connections with litigants or their attorneys, like Facebook friendships;
- whether certain law firms employ judge's relatives and judges in question are in a position of power to influence decisions for such law firms, and whether such law firms appear in the courts where judges preside. Where law firms may have hundreds of attorneys, and where the relation with the judges may be obscured by different last names or common last names, it is absolutely necessary to start requiring judges to publish his or her family trees, up to the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity, with places of work of the judge's relatives (for purposes of disqualification when judges preside as factfinders - the same as the law for disqualification of jurors);
It is absolutely necessary to equalize the way jurors and judges are disqualified from fact-findings functions, including voir dire, background investigation and peremptory challenges.
It is absolutely imperative to allow cameras (and not only of the media, but mainly litigants' video cameras) into the courtroom to preserve evidence of potential juror, attorney and judicial misconduct or non-verbal communication that cannot be captured by the transcripts, especially that, as my disciplinary case indicates, court transcripts can be and have been falsified.
It is absolutely imperative to do away with the all-encompassing and stretching beyond any limits "absolute judicial immunity", an unconstitutional self-serving gift of judges to judges, by which judges are now allowed to violate the Constitution the moment they have made an oath to protect it and get on that bench through that oath.
Yet, none of that was addressed by Lippman in his State of the Judiciary Address in 2015.
The only important issue was raising the already high pay for judges.
Apparently, New York has to have the best judges money can buy.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
New York State of the Judiciary 2015 Address - the reform of attorney discipline or agonizing attempts of New York judiciary to prevent the public from having qualified legal representation in civil rights cases?
In his "State of the Judiciary 2015" address Chief Judge of the State of New York Jonathan Lippman announced that he intends to transform the way attorneys are disciplined in New York and is creating a task force that is going to review the attorney disciplinary system "top to bottom" to see how it can be changed.
Of course, attorney licensing and discipline in New York exists (allegedly) for protection of the public.
Of course, the public is not given nearly any voice to decide which attorney needs to be investigated or disciplined, as lay members of the public have just a token presence in the attorney disciplinary committees.
Of course, attorney disciplinary hearings, (same as judicial disciplinary hearings) must be open to the public in accordance with EXISTING law, but it never happens for judicial disciplinary hearings.
Of course, when a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney is triggered, as in my case, by a shower of retaliatory sanctions imposed by a judge after I sued him, and I want a public hearing in my disciplinary case to show the public just HOW and WHY it is protected from me - the very same judiciary (literally) who was giving the address on 2015 (Eugene Fahey sitting behind Jonathan Lippman during the address - a judge out of my disciplinary panel in the 4th Department who denied me my statutory right to an open public court hearing) fights tooth and claw not to give the attorney a right which the Legislature already gave the attorney.
Of course, the "task force" for reviewing what needs to be revamped in the attorney disciplinary system in New York will by chaired by the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York A. Gail Prudenti and will consist of "members of the bench and the bar" (judges and attorneys).
My question to you, ladies and gentlemen, New Yorkers, is why Jonathan Lippman used YOUR money to create a task force without YOUR participation to decide how it is better to "revamp" a system that is designed (allegedly) to protect YOU.
Why such an extreme paternalism - at your expense?
Why you are not asked BEFORE this decision was made whether YOU, members of the public, would like to conduct such a task force, at taxpayers' expense, without ANY input from "the bench and the bar" unless the public Task Force asks their opinion?
After all, it is the public that is sought to be protected by attorney disciplinary system? Right?
And the public that is paying a heavy price for having attorney disciplinary system, where 4 out of 5 New York litigants cannot afford an attorney, yet the disciplinary system continues to exist and, apparently, protect the rights of 20% of New Yorkers who can afford an attorney by preventing 80% of New Yorkers from ever having an attorney due to high prices of legal services CAUSED by the existence of attorney licensing.
Who gave Lippman authority to use taxpayers' money to make a decision - without public input - to create such a Task Force to begin with?
Who will be assigned to the "task force" - political donors, friends and relatives of political donors? There obviously is not going to be any public oversight over the budget of this "Task Force", assignment of this "Task Force", or how it will operate.
And, you may be assured that "members of the bar" "serving" on this "Task Force" will be completely removed from the reach of attorney discipline themselves, as already are all politically connected attorneys, as well as relatives, friends, employees and former employees of the judicial system.
And since being a licensed attorney for a set number of years is now a threshold to judgeship, and since the judgeship is the ultimate sinecure for attorneys who did not make it in the outside world and who want to earn enough money for the last 10 years before pension to get that substantial pension, and since the judiciary has a grip on attorneys and thus attorneys get out of their way to please judges, including catering them at "mentoring" programs, inviting them to free dinners with drinks, bringing them to health resorts for "educational" seminars, contributing to their election and re-election campaigns, employing judges' relatives, friends and former law clerks, it is unthinkable that anybody other than judges and lawyers would be on the task force to see how the legal profession should be regulated - if at all.
Furthermore, faithful to his course to announce populist (and meaningful, or harmful) decisions in order to appease public concerns without actually addressing them, Lippman announced a new feature in shopping for attorneys: availability of information about attorney discipline when you "shop for an attorney" on the website of the New York State Court Administration - the attorney directory.
It is obvious that tremendous work, at public expense, was done before the date of Lippman's address, February 17, 2015, so that this information system becomes possible.
As a side note, and I will address it more in a separate post regarding issues about the judiciary that got addressed (or not addressed) in Lippman's "State of the Judiciary 2015" speech, is that while information about public discipline only against attorneys is now put on the website, right next to the attorney's name (which is not bad had the attorney discipline been applied even-handedly, by neutral representatives of the public and for public benefit instead of to root out competition and whistle-blowers of judicial misconduct, as it is now), Lippman did not put any programmers to task to put available public disciplinary information next to judges' names on the judicial directory.
An interesting - and telling - omission.
I checked the information system out.
And I was amazed at what I DID NOT find on this "public information system".
What I did is I checked out information for two cases where, according to information I could find on the Internet, or know from personal sources, attorneys were suspended or not reinstated, or both, for criticism of judicial misconduct.
These two cases are of attorneys Doris Sassower and Leon Koziol.
Here is the snippet from attorney registration website for Doris Sassower:
Doris Sassower, a respected member of the bar and one of "bar leaders", suddenly fell out of grace with the judiciary and was speedily suspended, as far as I know, without a hearing, when she sued to declare cross-endorsement agreements between the parties for judges illegal.
At this time Doris Sassower and her daughter Elene Sassower are founders of the Center of Judicial Accountability, a non-profit organization taking a vocal stand for transparency of judicial disciplinary proceedings.
Ellen Sassower testified at the Senate Confirmation hearings of Jonathan Lippman and publicized the fact that there was no notice of public hearing, no allotted time for opposition witnesses, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not review information provided by opposition witnesses and did not provide that information to the Senate for purposes of confirmation of Lippman.
In other words, Elena Sassower made an open claim that Lippman is not a legitimate judge and that he is a usurper.
Usually orders regarding attorney discipline are available in the Internet.
I could not find the order of suspension of Doris Sassower - who was suspended in 1991, that is 24 (!) years ago and still not reinstated. Even when an attorney is disbarred in New York, he or she is entitled to apply for reinstatement after 7 years of disbarment.
But for a suspended attorney to remain suspended for 24 years without reinstatement?
Most interesting.
So, when Lippman announced that all public orders of discipline against attorneys are now available, I rushed to the attorney directory to look up finally, what kind of reason did the judiciary concoct to suspend Doris Sassower.
I faithfully clicked on the link under Doris Sassower's registration information.
Here is what is showed me.
Oh, yes, Lippman mentioned that he only made information available about public attorney disciplinary decisions since December of 2003, and Doris Sassower's decision was from 1991.
Yet, when members of the public look up attorneys, they do that not only to shop for an attorney - obviously you cannot employ a suspended attorney - but they may do that to see on what grounds courts decided to remove an attorney who provided services for the poor from the reach of the poor, a matter of public concern.
It would make sense to provide information about public discipline of attorneys who are publicly disciplined (disbarred, suspended, censured), but are alive at this time.
And it would make sense to also see not only the Decisions, but the attorneys' full disciplinary file - why they were disciplined, what did they answer, who complained about them, whether they applied for reinstatement, what documents they presented to be reinstated, what were the reasons, if any, to deny reinstatement.
All of those issues are issues of public concern.
If you think that, according to Judiciary Law 90(10) disciplinary information on attorneys becomes public and available at the time public discipline is imposed, think again.
I am currently suing in federal court the Professional Conduct Committee of the 3rd Department for access to the file of my husband who was disbarred by that department (under circumstances clearly suggesting corruption - I wrote about it on my blog previously), to get access to his disciplinary file which is now allegedly open to the public. The name of the case is Neroni v. Zayas, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
It appears that the file simply disappeared and does not exist.
And that is the "deep secret" that the New York judiciary, probably, would not want the public to know - that information as to WHY certain attorneys were suspended, disbarred and not reinstated, simply VANISHED once it allegedly was supposed to become available to the public.
Like, I am sure, information from my file will vanish if I am suspended or disbarred - while now I am not allowed access to my own file (same as my husband was not allowed access to his own file during his disciplinary proceedings), I am not allowed to open my proceedings to the public, to the point of being charged criminally for an alleged attempt to release information from MY OWN disciplinary proceedings.
So - before discipline is imposed, the information is secret because the courts say so (whether it is lawful or not, whether the attorney wants the "confidentiality" or not), and after the public discipline is imposed, the information is not available because either the Committee's block it in the hope that the suspended or disbarred attorney will be so demoralized and financially devastated that he or she will not be able to challenge them, or those documents simply vanish.
One more aspect of the information that is NOT available is information about denying reinstatements to suspended or disbarred attorneys.
Here is a snapshot of registration information of a well known New York civil rights attorney Leon Koziol who was speedily suspended after he publicly challenged judicial misconduct:
If you click on the link "View Possible Court Decisions Imposing Discipline", you will see the decision to impose discipline, but not the decision denying reinstatement.
And Mr. Koziol was denied reinstatement BECAUSE he testified before the now-disbanded Moreland Commission as to rampant and uncontrolled judicial misconduct in the State of New York, and because he runs a website and a blog where he raises issues of judicial misconduct in Family and divorce courts in New York, a matter of extreme public concern.
By the way, attorney Peter Torncello who actively opposed Mr. Koziol's reinstatement on the grounds that Mr. Koziol raised issues of public concern on his blog and in front of the Moreland Commission, resigned from the Professional Conduct Committee the same year, and he resigned "amid investigation into filing false time sheets".
According to his registration information, Peter Torncello was never publicly disciplined.
Apparently, in New York, filing false timesheets is ok for an attorney.
Speaking out on issues of public concern is not ok for an attorney.
So, the "spectacular" and "absolute best" judiciary, with its boss Judge Lippman, while throwing under-educated law students "to bridge the justice gap" and represent the poor, prevents two well qualified civil rights attorneys from returning to serving their clients because they raise issues of judicial misconduct during the time of their suspension.
And THAT must be a matter of public concern.
What I would suggest Judge Lippman might want to do if he really wants to inform the public of attorney discipline is have all the records pertaining to suspension or disbarment of attorneys now living to be scanned and put online next to their names.
What I also would like to suggest is to give information to the public not on the basis of attorney-by-attorney, but by a list.
What is NOT available on the website of the State of New York is a list of attorneys who have been licensed to practice law in New York since licensing began, even though such information is available through individual searches of attorneys.
Why this information is so important?
So that the public could readily see from the list what categories of attorneys are disciplined in New York.
I bet that then the public will have hard facts, not available now because the New York State Court Administration does not compile such statistics, and if it does not compile such statistics, it does not have to provide such statistics to the public on Freedom of Information requests (the usual and convenient tactic of the government to avoid review of its wrondgoing).
I bet that if and when not only court orders where courts usually try to obscure and hide the real issues of why an attorney is being disciplined, but also the FULL FILES, including attorney's answers and motions in their disciplinary proceedings, and affidavits and testimony of witnesses, if available, become readily accessible to the public (and that, by the way, will not require much money since not so many attorneys are disciplined), the public will know that, while the claim is that attorney licensing discipline is imposed to protect the public from bad attorneys, it operates to remove qualified civil rights and criminal defense attorneys' services from the reach of the poor.
If the public has in front of it a list of all attorneys who have ever be licensed (and disciplined) in New York, the public may come to realize that attorneys from the government, from powerful and politically connected law firms, relatives, friends, employees and/or business associates of judges are never disciplined, while discipline befalls predominantly on private, solo, independent attorneys, mostly criminal defense and civil rights lawyers, or female attorneys fighting discrimination in the legal profession, or immigrant attorneys fighting discrimination against non-native speaker attorneys.
But Lippman wouldn't want you to know that, would he, especially when he is cackling about "access to justice" and "bridging the justice gap", while actions of the judiciary operate to widen that gap and preventing it from ever being bridged.
Of course, attorney licensing and discipline in New York exists (allegedly) for protection of the public.
Of course, the public is not given nearly any voice to decide which attorney needs to be investigated or disciplined, as lay members of the public have just a token presence in the attorney disciplinary committees.
Of course, attorney disciplinary hearings, (same as judicial disciplinary hearings) must be open to the public in accordance with EXISTING law, but it never happens for judicial disciplinary hearings.
Of course, when a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney is triggered, as in my case, by a shower of retaliatory sanctions imposed by a judge after I sued him, and I want a public hearing in my disciplinary case to show the public just HOW and WHY it is protected from me - the very same judiciary (literally) who was giving the address on 2015 (Eugene Fahey sitting behind Jonathan Lippman during the address - a judge out of my disciplinary panel in the 4th Department who denied me my statutory right to an open public court hearing) fights tooth and claw not to give the attorney a right which the Legislature already gave the attorney.
Of course, the "task force" for reviewing what needs to be revamped in the attorney disciplinary system in New York will by chaired by the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York A. Gail Prudenti and will consist of "members of the bench and the bar" (judges and attorneys).
My question to you, ladies and gentlemen, New Yorkers, is why Jonathan Lippman used YOUR money to create a task force without YOUR participation to decide how it is better to "revamp" a system that is designed (allegedly) to protect YOU.
Why such an extreme paternalism - at your expense?
Why you are not asked BEFORE this decision was made whether YOU, members of the public, would like to conduct such a task force, at taxpayers' expense, without ANY input from "the bench and the bar" unless the public Task Force asks their opinion?
After all, it is the public that is sought to be protected by attorney disciplinary system? Right?
And the public that is paying a heavy price for having attorney disciplinary system, where 4 out of 5 New York litigants cannot afford an attorney, yet the disciplinary system continues to exist and, apparently, protect the rights of 20% of New Yorkers who can afford an attorney by preventing 80% of New Yorkers from ever having an attorney due to high prices of legal services CAUSED by the existence of attorney licensing.
Who gave Lippman authority to use taxpayers' money to make a decision - without public input - to create such a Task Force to begin with?
Who will be assigned to the "task force" - political donors, friends and relatives of political donors? There obviously is not going to be any public oversight over the budget of this "Task Force", assignment of this "Task Force", or how it will operate.
And, you may be assured that "members of the bar" "serving" on this "Task Force" will be completely removed from the reach of attorney discipline themselves, as already are all politically connected attorneys, as well as relatives, friends, employees and former employees of the judicial system.
And since being a licensed attorney for a set number of years is now a threshold to judgeship, and since the judgeship is the ultimate sinecure for attorneys who did not make it in the outside world and who want to earn enough money for the last 10 years before pension to get that substantial pension, and since the judiciary has a grip on attorneys and thus attorneys get out of their way to please judges, including catering them at "mentoring" programs, inviting them to free dinners with drinks, bringing them to health resorts for "educational" seminars, contributing to their election and re-election campaigns, employing judges' relatives, friends and former law clerks, it is unthinkable that anybody other than judges and lawyers would be on the task force to see how the legal profession should be regulated - if at all.
Furthermore, faithful to his course to announce populist (and meaningful, or harmful) decisions in order to appease public concerns without actually addressing them, Lippman announced a new feature in shopping for attorneys: availability of information about attorney discipline when you "shop for an attorney" on the website of the New York State Court Administration - the attorney directory.
It is obvious that tremendous work, at public expense, was done before the date of Lippman's address, February 17, 2015, so that this information system becomes possible.
As a side note, and I will address it more in a separate post regarding issues about the judiciary that got addressed (or not addressed) in Lippman's "State of the Judiciary 2015" speech, is that while information about public discipline only against attorneys is now put on the website, right next to the attorney's name (which is not bad had the attorney discipline been applied even-handedly, by neutral representatives of the public and for public benefit instead of to root out competition and whistle-blowers of judicial misconduct, as it is now), Lippman did not put any programmers to task to put available public disciplinary information next to judges' names on the judicial directory.
An interesting - and telling - omission.
I checked the information system out.
And I was amazed at what I DID NOT find on this "public information system".
What I did is I checked out information for two cases where, according to information I could find on the Internet, or know from personal sources, attorneys were suspended or not reinstated, or both, for criticism of judicial misconduct.
These two cases are of attorneys Doris Sassower and Leon Koziol.
Here is the snippet from attorney registration website for Doris Sassower:
Doris Sassower, a respected member of the bar and one of "bar leaders", suddenly fell out of grace with the judiciary and was speedily suspended, as far as I know, without a hearing, when she sued to declare cross-endorsement agreements between the parties for judges illegal.
At this time Doris Sassower and her daughter Elene Sassower are founders of the Center of Judicial Accountability, a non-profit organization taking a vocal stand for transparency of judicial disciplinary proceedings.
Ellen Sassower testified at the Senate Confirmation hearings of Jonathan Lippman and publicized the fact that there was no notice of public hearing, no allotted time for opposition witnesses, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not review information provided by opposition witnesses and did not provide that information to the Senate for purposes of confirmation of Lippman.
In other words, Elena Sassower made an open claim that Lippman is not a legitimate judge and that he is a usurper.
Usually orders regarding attorney discipline are available in the Internet.
I could not find the order of suspension of Doris Sassower - who was suspended in 1991, that is 24 (!) years ago and still not reinstated. Even when an attorney is disbarred in New York, he or she is entitled to apply for reinstatement after 7 years of disbarment.
But for a suspended attorney to remain suspended for 24 years without reinstatement?
Most interesting.
So, when Lippman announced that all public orders of discipline against attorneys are now available, I rushed to the attorney directory to look up finally, what kind of reason did the judiciary concoct to suspend Doris Sassower.
I faithfully clicked on the link under Doris Sassower's registration information.
Here is what is showed me.
Oh, yes, Lippman mentioned that he only made information available about public attorney disciplinary decisions since December of 2003, and Doris Sassower's decision was from 1991.
Yet, when members of the public look up attorneys, they do that not only to shop for an attorney - obviously you cannot employ a suspended attorney - but they may do that to see on what grounds courts decided to remove an attorney who provided services for the poor from the reach of the poor, a matter of public concern.
It would make sense to provide information about public discipline of attorneys who are publicly disciplined (disbarred, suspended, censured), but are alive at this time.
And it would make sense to also see not only the Decisions, but the attorneys' full disciplinary file - why they were disciplined, what did they answer, who complained about them, whether they applied for reinstatement, what documents they presented to be reinstated, what were the reasons, if any, to deny reinstatement.
All of those issues are issues of public concern.
If you think that, according to Judiciary Law 90(10) disciplinary information on attorneys becomes public and available at the time public discipline is imposed, think again.
I am currently suing in federal court the Professional Conduct Committee of the 3rd Department for access to the file of my husband who was disbarred by that department (under circumstances clearly suggesting corruption - I wrote about it on my blog previously), to get access to his disciplinary file which is now allegedly open to the public. The name of the case is Neroni v. Zayas, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
It appears that the file simply disappeared and does not exist.
And that is the "deep secret" that the New York judiciary, probably, would not want the public to know - that information as to WHY certain attorneys were suspended, disbarred and not reinstated, simply VANISHED once it allegedly was supposed to become available to the public.
Like, I am sure, information from my file will vanish if I am suspended or disbarred - while now I am not allowed access to my own file (same as my husband was not allowed access to his own file during his disciplinary proceedings), I am not allowed to open my proceedings to the public, to the point of being charged criminally for an alleged attempt to release information from MY OWN disciplinary proceedings.
So - before discipline is imposed, the information is secret because the courts say so (whether it is lawful or not, whether the attorney wants the "confidentiality" or not), and after the public discipline is imposed, the information is not available because either the Committee's block it in the hope that the suspended or disbarred attorney will be so demoralized and financially devastated that he or she will not be able to challenge them, or those documents simply vanish.
One more aspect of the information that is NOT available is information about denying reinstatements to suspended or disbarred attorneys.
Here is a snapshot of registration information of a well known New York civil rights attorney Leon Koziol who was speedily suspended after he publicly challenged judicial misconduct:
If you click on the link "View Possible Court Decisions Imposing Discipline", you will see the decision to impose discipline, but not the decision denying reinstatement.
And Mr. Koziol was denied reinstatement BECAUSE he testified before the now-disbanded Moreland Commission as to rampant and uncontrolled judicial misconduct in the State of New York, and because he runs a website and a blog where he raises issues of judicial misconduct in Family and divorce courts in New York, a matter of extreme public concern.
By the way, attorney Peter Torncello who actively opposed Mr. Koziol's reinstatement on the grounds that Mr. Koziol raised issues of public concern on his blog and in front of the Moreland Commission, resigned from the Professional Conduct Committee the same year, and he resigned "amid investigation into filing false time sheets".
According to his registration information, Peter Torncello was never publicly disciplined.
Apparently, in New York, filing false timesheets is ok for an attorney.
Speaking out on issues of public concern is not ok for an attorney.
So, the "spectacular" and "absolute best" judiciary, with its boss Judge Lippman, while throwing under-educated law students "to bridge the justice gap" and represent the poor, prevents two well qualified civil rights attorneys from returning to serving their clients because they raise issues of judicial misconduct during the time of their suspension.
And THAT must be a matter of public concern.
What I would suggest Judge Lippman might want to do if he really wants to inform the public of attorney discipline is have all the records pertaining to suspension or disbarment of attorneys now living to be scanned and put online next to their names.
What I also would like to suggest is to give information to the public not on the basis of attorney-by-attorney, but by a list.
What is NOT available on the website of the State of New York is a list of attorneys who have been licensed to practice law in New York since licensing began, even though such information is available through individual searches of attorneys.
Why this information is so important?
So that the public could readily see from the list what categories of attorneys are disciplined in New York.
I bet that then the public will have hard facts, not available now because the New York State Court Administration does not compile such statistics, and if it does not compile such statistics, it does not have to provide such statistics to the public on Freedom of Information requests (the usual and convenient tactic of the government to avoid review of its wrondgoing).
I bet that if and when not only court orders where courts usually try to obscure and hide the real issues of why an attorney is being disciplined, but also the FULL FILES, including attorney's answers and motions in their disciplinary proceedings, and affidavits and testimony of witnesses, if available, become readily accessible to the public (and that, by the way, will not require much money since not so many attorneys are disciplined), the public will know that, while the claim is that attorney licensing discipline is imposed to protect the public from bad attorneys, it operates to remove qualified civil rights and criminal defense attorneys' services from the reach of the poor.
If the public has in front of it a list of all attorneys who have ever be licensed (and disciplined) in New York, the public may come to realize that attorneys from the government, from powerful and politically connected law firms, relatives, friends, employees and/or business associates of judges are never disciplined, while discipline befalls predominantly on private, solo, independent attorneys, mostly criminal defense and civil rights lawyers, or female attorneys fighting discrimination in the legal profession, or immigrant attorneys fighting discrimination against non-native speaker attorneys.
But Lippman wouldn't want you to know that, would he, especially when he is cackling about "access to justice" and "bridging the justice gap", while actions of the judiciary operate to widen that gap and preventing it from ever being bridged.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
New York State of the Judiciary Address 2015 - using slave labor of under-educated law students to bridge "the justice gap" created by attorney regulation. Can anything be more hypocritical than these "solutions"?
Here is a scenario for you.
You have a complex legal problem.
You have the money for a lawyer/advisor to help you with that problem.
With that problem and that money you are looking for an attorney to help you with the problem.
And you know that attorney licensing - allegedly - protects you.
And that only licensed attorneys may represent you.
And that an attorney can only be licensed in New York if:
- The attorney, before becoming an attorney, SUCCESSFULLY - graduates from an ABA-accredited law school;
- Then and only then - on SUCCESSFUL graduation out of law school - will the attorney be allowed to even sit for the bar.
Now look at the "solution" to the "justice gap" in New York where over 80% of New Yorkers (4 out of every 5, or nearly 2 MILLION litigants every year) cannot afford counsel.
So, now your lawyers in the "PRO BONO Scholars Program" will have not 3 years of law school education (remember - the reason for attorney license was to guarantee to customers uniformity and quality of legal education, among other things?).
Such "scholars" will have 2.5 years of law school education.
So, the poor are entitled to representation by under-educated law students who did not yet finish law school.
Now, please, tell me, what makes such law students "scholars"?
The law on internships is clear - the internship can only be an internship if the person who is in the internship is TAUGHT something.
These under-educated law students are not thrown in to be TAUGHT anything - they are thrown in - remember why? - TO BRIDGE THE JUSTICE GAP, simply as slave labor.
Everybody knows how expensive legal education is nowadays.
Nothing is said here that the "PRO BONO" students will be forgiven their last-semester law school tuition?
I doubt law schools, currently struggling already from decreasing enrollments, will agree to that.
So, most likely, the students are going to still have to pay their last-semester tuition while working PRO BONO - for a semester!
And this proposal of slavery is supposed to have this expected effect:
I remember a similar incentive in the Soviet Union - to gave to the best workers a red banner, passing from worker to worker as a great honor.
Well, unless Lippman omitted some significant details in the "Pro Bono Scholars Program", I don't see the incentive to go their for law students, especially because the Pro Bono Scholars will not be allowed into the areas where they will learn skills that will allow them in the future access to a customer base who can pay for their services.
The biggest incentive would have been here - loan forgiveness. Complete loan forgiveness if a law student, on graduation - ON TIME, after 3 years of school - agrees to donate a certain amount of hours to people in need of legal services.
Apparently, New York does not have the budget for that.
And slave labor was never effective, even when it is portrayed as "the honorable service" of "our best and brightest".
Somehow I do not see Jonathan Lippman's children, both attorneys, one Harvard-educated and the other Cornell-educated, to rush into pro bono representation of under-served individuals.
That would have been one big PR campaign for Lippman. But - alas.
And in the same address Lippman was pushing for even higher pay for judges - which at this time already is 3-4 TIMES higher than any salaries that "our best and brightest" can earn if they decide to become "full-time advocates for those in need".
Again, populism and hypocrisy. As usual.
The next brilliant solution of the "justice gap" - the whole of 20 scholars for the "poverty solution" project will go after graduation to "legal service providers". 20 new and inexperienced attorneys to bridge the gap of 2 million litigants who cannot afford legal representation.
Lippman really had to announce this "solution" in his "State of the Judiciary" address as a big achievement.
I wonder how many times less those 20 scholars will cost the state of New York than maintaining the lavish suites for judges of the NYS Court of Appeals and other courts, and take care of carvings, furniture and paintings in those courtrooms.
Just out of curiousity.
What Judge Lippman did not really concentrate on is what kind of QUALITY of legal representation his proposed "solutions" give to people.
After all, attorney licensing is heralded as necessary to protect consumers (even those 4 out of 5 who, because of attorney licensing, and associated higher prices of legal services, cannot afford the services of those same licensed attorneys), to ensure quality of legal representation.
First of all, who are those mysterious "we"?
Was Lippman ever evicted to speak of "hard-earned experience"?
And don't "we" know from "hard-earned" experienced that what a person needs in the courtroom is not the presence of a "lawyer", but the presence of a professional adviser (unfortunately, due to criminal laws against unauthorized practice of law those advisers at this time can be only licensed attorneys, without regard to their actual experience or skills) who knows what he or she is doing.
Lippman is bridging the gap with either students who did not yet graduate from law school, or by students who just graduated and do not have any experience.
To proclaim such "solutions' as "bridging the gap" and helping indigent people find proper legal representation is a SICK JOKE that can only be perceived with applause by spoiled rich people, such as New York State judges are (as compared to the average income of New Yorkers, County and Supreme Court judges are rich).
I have a funny feeling that these "solutions" to the "justice gap problems" is nothing other than procuring funding to some "friendly organizations".
With this in mind, I will be investigating who stands behind the "approvied" "private-public partners" in this "Poverty Justice Solutions" program, the partners announced by Lippman in the same address:
Lippman is retiring this year.
His friend Silver is under criminal prosecution for corruption and, probably, cannot help any more.
So - there may be a real need to start building bridges for the future jobs-after-retirement for Lippman. And what would work more nicely than a chunk of change to a "certified" "public-private partner", where nobody can really trace whose nephew, friend, colleague, brother, sister-in-law, etc. of a founder of that "private-public partner" will employ the retired judge in the future.
Do I believe in people who are work for public good without hope of a monetary - or any other - reward?
Of course, I do.
I just do not believe in sincerity of Lippman, or that Lippman will choose such people or firms for "public-private partnerships".
The next "solution" by Lippman is - without deregulation of attorneys - expansion of the now-pilot program of PRO BONO non-lawyer "court navigators".
I have not heard anything about removing from the books the recently elevated to a felony level UPL (unauthorized practice of law) Penal Law, and what Lippman proposes "court navigators" are doing would easily result in UPL charges against, let's say, a suspended or disbarred attorney.
Filling out forms, advising as to deadlines imposed by courts etc. etc. etc.
Why not deregulate the legal profession already? How does Lippman suppose he will get those "court advocates" in needed numbers if they are required to be PRO BONO - what is the incentive for MILLIONS of people, in our state of economy, with majority of Americans living from paycheck to paycheck, to become PRO BONO "court navigators"?
Of course, the New York State Bar association will see "great progress" in "court navigators", as long as they do not get a cut of the pie and are not allowed to (1) charge for their services, or (2) represent people in lucrative areas of law - divorces, criminal law.
It is "ok" for the NYSBA to have "court navigators" "assist" indigent litigants in cases housing and consumer debt cases.
In fact, both housing and consumer debt cases require skills and diligence.
In consumer debt cases most cases are resolved by default or by waiver of the main issue in such cases - standing and fraudulent assignments of debts.
To analyze documentation and properly present it to the courts, one needs training, and I DO NOT insist that there should be a requirement for a licensed attorney representation in such cases.
I saw enough of licensed attorneys who did not have a clue what they are doing in such cases.
Once again - if the "court navigators" are allowed in two types of cases, providing services that can be charged as UPL:
(1) why allow to do that ONLY pro bono;
(2) why allow to do that only in two types of cases - housing and consumer debt?
(3) why restrict what "court advocates" can do?
My suggestion to our illustrious and "spectacular", "absolutely the best" judiciary.
Stop acting like you do not see the solution that is right under your nose.
Stop bridging the very real justice gap by stupid tricks that only your spoiled rich associates can applaud to.
Stop introducing half-measures and non-measures.
Just deregulate the legal profession - and the justice gap will instantly shrink, if not disappear. Soon.
But I doubt that the judiciary will be promoting deregulation, as the judiciary is interested in (1) having control over lawyers; (2) having control over what lawyers say about judges; (3) secure well-paid positions after retirement in law firms.
And, if the judiciary pushes for deregulation, who will wine and dine them? Who will donate to their election campaign? Who will bring them to resorts for "educational" seminars? Who will employ their relatives and friends?
The push for deregulation and for really bridging the justice gap will not come from the judiciary.
It should come from the People of the State of New York, through our own legislative initiatives.
Let's come together and do it.
New York State of the Judiciary Address 2015 - here goes the "fourth power", independence of the grand juries
Jonathan Lippman appears to be really upset with existence of a power in the State of New York which is not under control of the judiciary.
That is the grand juries.
In fact, a criminal offense in the State of New York "superior" court may not be prosecuted other than "through the agency" of the grand jury.
In other words, a court higher than a village justice court will not receive jurisdiction over criminal proceedings other than through the indictment of the grand jury, which is a fairly independent body, not answering to the court.
In fact, I would add to the powers of the grand jury to commence their own investigations without presentment by local district attorneys.
Judge Lippman, of course, paid the lip service that the grand jury is a good thing and that it would not be proper for him to criticize their decisions:
Then Lippman starts to claim that the grand jury, an body independent from the court and giving (or not giving) the power to the court in felony cases, is actually, in Lippman's view, "a part of the court", and "an institution for which the Judiciary is ultimately responsible".
Grand jury is not "part of the court", it is a fairly independent body, but it is clear that Lippman is suffering from control pains since he considers himself "ultimately responsible" for the institution that he (and his courts) cannot control, but instead the grand jury controls the courts by giving or withholding from the court jurisdiction over felony proceedings.
And, even though Lippman recognizes that "it is not his role to defend or decry a particular grand jury decision", he pretty much does that:
Now not only 23 men and women of the grand juries cannot be right in indicting - or not indicting - a particular individual.
Now prosecutors cannot be left to themselves to present a case to the grand jury.
If Lippman thinks that prosecutors may be just a little bit too partial to police if, say, a case is presented to the grand jury against a police officer, what would be the logical solution?
I thought it would be a no brainer, especially for such a man of brilliance as Jonathan Lippman, the Chief Judge of the State of New York, the man commanding all this "spectacular" and brilliant judiciary, the "absolute best" in the country, according to his statement in the same address.
It would be to EXPAND the grand jury's independent powers, to allow the grand juries to conduct independent investigations on complaints of citizens, and to eliminate prosecutors from their official position as, both the person interested in the indictment, and the "legal advisor of the grand jury".
But that would mean - the horror! - more independence from the judiciary, too!
And less possibility of getting indictments against people "not liked" by the government.
So, Lippman had a diametrically opposite plan - to put the grand juries under the control of the courts.
Presumably, a judge, in his or her infinite wisdom, will direct the unreasonable 23 men and women toward the light of what needs to be done and whether to return or not to return an indictment.
And the judge will steer the grand juries from "sensitive" indictments against corrupt public officials to the "correct" indictments against "incorrect" people who government dislikes - right, Judge Lippman? Isn't it the purpose of putting the grand juries under control of the courts?
And, of course, this power-grab is meant to be for "the public good".
There is a saying: "when it isn't broken, don't fix it".
Whenever a public official tells you he/she is trying to do something new and cancel something old and working well "for the public good"...
Should we push for grand jury reform? Definitely.
To make it MORE independent from courts.
For the Grand Juries to have their own independent investigative powers.
For the Grand Juries to be able to hire their own legal advisers and experts, not to be led by the nose by the prosecutors - or by judges - as unreasonable children.
We need independent grand juries to clean up the corrupt mess that this state has become, including its "absolutely best" "spectacular" and spectacularly corrupt judiciary.
New York State of the Judiciary Address of 2015 - "bail reform"?
9 BILLION dollars, ladies and gentlemen, homeowners in the State of New York.
That's the annual cost of pretrial detention in New York.
61%
That's the share of people held in New York jails who are put in jail before trial without bail or with a bail that they cannot pay, the number quoted in the yesterday's "State of the Judiciary 2015" address by Judge Jonathan Lippman, page 16.
Let's count.
That's $5,490,000.00 - 5 BILLION 490 MILLION dollars YOU pay PER YEAR to detain people who are presumed innocent, before trial.
No wonder we have a budgetary crisis in this country.
No wonder people cannot pay their mortgages because of high property taxes.
No wonder people are fleeing the state of New York to go to states with lower property taxes.
That's the money.
Now as to how bail issues are decided.
Here is a report by the New York State County Lawyers' Association which describes problems with the push for the so-called "bail reform" quite well:
(1) that it is inappropriate to set bail on people in such a way that people cannot afford it;
(2) that it is inappropriate to consider, for the so called "public safety" considerations, the same factors as when the judge decides whether the defendant will or will not return to court for appearances;
(3) that what constitutes "public safety" consideration for bail decisions/bail denials is vague and prone to arbitrary enforcement;
(4) that the reasoning for such "public safety" determinations are going to be obscured from public review;
(5) that it is simply wrong to presume that the person who can (or his family or friends can) pay a high bail is automatically safer to the community than the defendant who cannot pay bail.
Etc. etc. etc.
That report was issued a year and a month ago, on January 15, 2014.
It all fell on the deaf ears of the New York State Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals Jonathan Lippman.
In his State of the Judiciary Address he pushes for bail-for-public-safety as the paramount issue, while ignoring all concerns raised by practitioners (and judges, by the way) in the NYCLA report of January 15, 2014.
It is understandable that, with the possibility of Lippman's 70-year-old childhood friend Sheldon Silver starting to crack up and cough up to the prosecutors information about his still high-standing friends to avoid dying in prison, Lippman's goal at this time may be to present as many populist ideas to the public as it is humanly possible.
But, as the NYCLA report said, presuming that those who can pay bail are safer to society than those who cannot pay that bail is not a reasonable consideration. It is quite a stunningly un-democratic consideration actually for Lippman who is knocking himself out at every turn with his claims as a champion of "access to justice".
Once again, nothing not to be expected from this judge who has no litigation experience before he was propelled to the Supreme Court bench and then propelled higher and higher, until he hit the ceiling (in the State of New York) by his - now disgraced - friend Sheldon Silver.
But thank you for the numbers, Judge Lippman.
They are, once again, staggering, for a human being, an attorney, a New York homeowner and a taxpayer.
And, yay, let's decide whether a person is or is not safe to the community by his own and his family's ability to pay his/her bail.
After all, money, status and power is all what justice system - and the judiciary - is concerned about. Isn't it?
State of Judiciary address of 2015 - a general impression
I am starting to analyze the yesterday's "State of the Judiciary 2015" address by Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals.
Here is a general impression.
Nothing unexpected there.
A lot of self-aggrandizing.
A lot of self-praise - how "spectacular" the New York state judiciary is. How it is the "absolute best" in the country. How it deserves the best pay in the country. How a new raise for judges is planned (from the current puny $152,000 for County Judges and $172,000 for Supreme Court judges) despite the "access to justice crisis".
Happens all the time, year in and year out.
Listening to Lippman was like a flashback to my youth in the Soviet Union.
There were also a lot of speeches by the Communist party leaders at that point, a lot of self-aggrandizing, a lot of self-praise, a lot of claims that they are the absolute best for the country.
Quite sickening, actually. Both then and now.
Different country, different language, allegedly different societal structures.
The same blights.
I will try to analyze the State of the Judiciary address of 2015 issue by issue, in detail, on this blog, in the nearest future.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)