Former President Donald Trump is a notoriously difficult customer.He regularly requests that his lawyer: extreme position, refuse to comply Contempt the judge (whose attorney may have appeared in other cases) on court order and pursue the matter with the attorney too often. illegal plan.
President Trump’s favorite litigation tactic is delay, requiring lawyers to do virtually anything to thwart a potential liquidation, no matter how tense or implausible the allegations.
The latest episode of creative obstruction is a pointless last-minute motion to remove Judge Juan Machan, who is presiding over Mr. Trump’s “hush money” case in Manhattan.of indictment The film is based on allegations that President Trump falsified business records to hide a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election.
of Motion to disqualifyThe lawsuit, filed just two weeks before the scheduled start of the trial, is based on the political activities of Lauren Marchan, the judge’s adult daughter. Lauren Marchan said, “Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff, and more.”
by motion, Marchan is a representative of a number of “politicians and organizations actively campaigning for and defending President Trump,” some of whom “have solicited fundraisers that reference this incident.” Because there are many people involved, they have a “direct economic interest” in the outcome of the hush money lawsuit. At various times over the past year. However, under New York state law, the economic and other interests of adult children are not vested in the judicial parent.
The validity of a motion may be best judged by its omissions or omissions. Trump’s lawyers devoted nearly all 35 pages to the lawsuit. motion Even the details of Mr. Marchand’s extensive consulting work appear to be uncontroversial. Apparently, they say little about the actual New York shunning law. When they finally get down to specific legal provisions, there is only about five pages of discussion in total, but they quote the provisions in a very misleading manner.
for example, motion It argues that the court’s rules require disbarment when “the judge knows that the next of kin ‘has an interest that could be materially affected by the proceeding.'” ing. This is a dishonest misstatement. rule As such, it limits the relationships requiring recusal to “the judge’s spouse or minor children residing in the judge’s household.”
While it is clear that the adult daughter is a close relative, it is nevertheless a relationship that is specifically exempted from the economic interest rules, and President Trump’s motion does not even purport to address this.
The motion to dismiss also charges that Judge Marchand recently provided information to the media. interview is in violation rules of another court. Judge Machan began the interview by saying: saying “He wouldn’t talk about the case.” But he said his preparation was “zealous” and “made sure we did everything we could to prepare and make sure justice was served.” He said he is working hard to bring it down.
“There is no agenda here,” he added. “We want to follow the law. We want justice to be done. That’s all we want.”
Mr. Marchand’s poisonous remarks did not give Mr. Trump any disadvantage or prejudice, but this retraction is motion He was accused of violating court rules that prohibit “public comment regarding pending or impending litigation.” Once again, the motion simply ignored the following key language: “This paragraph does not prohibit judges . . . from explaining court proceedings to the public.”
In other words, Mr. Marchand’s interview remained within the rules and provided public information about the nature of his preparations without commenting on the merits or details of the case.
Finally, the timing of the move is questionable at best. Mr. Trump filed a similar claim in August last year based on Mr. Marchand’s political consulting work, but the court rejected it in a six-page opinion. Although the new motion is broader, it does not include facts discovered and raised long ago, nor does it explain what was filed just before trial.
As someone who has taught legal ethics for 40 years and is the author of numerous books and articles specifically on judicial ethics, I have been approached by numerous lawyers and judges regarding potential recusal issues. I have seen few cases weaker than this one, and have discouraged attorneys from filing motions to dismiss in more compelling circumstances.
If there is one duty that lawyers have when seeking to disbar a judge, it is to be forthright about the applicable law. In this case, the omission of the complaint speaks volumes about the soundness of the request for revocation. Perhaps a story could also be told about the lengths to which some lawyers will go to appease their bullied clients.
Stephen Lubet is Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. He is a co-author of “.Judicial Conduct and Ethics” (5th edition) Other books and articles on law and judicial ethics.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
