If You are Not Familiar With Politics Hang on To Your Hat and Dive into this Article for a little bit of "WAKE UP AMERICA"
Source: http://www.judicialaccountability.org/patronage.htm
Report from the New York Court
After a two year investigation of judicial patronage by a Commission established by Chief Judge Judith Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals - the highest state court in New York - the Commission issued its Report in December, 2001. What is rather unusual about the Report is that it officially acknowledged, admitted and published, that many court appointments were based on cronyism, politics and nepotism; that judges were awarding lucrative fees to lawyers appointed as guardians and receivers from other peoples' money put under control of the court and entrusted to the lawyers and that judges and lawyers were flaunting existing rules governing guardians and receivers. The names of these judges and lawyers with the exception of the Brooklyn lawyers, whose brazen letter prompted the investigation, have not been published and are kept "confidential" by the Commission. Although, the Report was compiled and published in the State of New York, the wrongful practices described in the Report are very much prevalent in the courts of numerous other states of the nation.
The Report offers a rare inside view of how the judges return favors and interact with well connected lawyers by rewarding them with coveted appointments of what is known in legal jargon as "fiduciaries". The Report covers fiduciaries appointed by the court, as guardians for incapacitated persons, the elderly, the feeble who are the most vulnerable and the least able to help themselves; as guardians ad litem for children involved in litigation; and as receivers for properties such as in foreclosures or where it is alleged that the property maybe materially injured or destroyed. The fiduciary appointees are usually private attorneys. Unless the incapacitated person is an indigent, the fiduciaries are usually paid from the assets of the incompetent or of the litigant in the action. The fiduciary generally takes full control over someone’s assets and/or property. The Report describes numerous instances of how these assets were turned into a lucrative source of funds for lawyers, with the least amount of work and effort.
Fiduciary appointments became the target of wide public criticism in New York, reflected in a continuous stream of newspaper articles. Charges were made that judges were appointing fiduciaries based on friendship or on other personal considerations, that fiduciary appointees were mishandling cases and were receiving excessive compensation. It then hit the news media that Arnold Ludwig and Thomas Garry, lawyers with ties to the Brooklyn Democratic committee, complained in a December 1999 letter to party leaders that they were getting frozen out of legal work including on the lucrative Cypress Hills Cemetery case, despite their "unquestioned loyalty to the party". The lawyers wrote to party official that they would be resigning as members of the Kings County Democratic Law Committee and would no longer do the legal work for the party free of charge because a Mr. Batra terminated their firm from serving as the attorneys on Mr. Batra’s many appointments as receiver. They were outraged that despite the long standing practice of the lucrative fiduciary appointments going to insiders of the Brooklyn Democratic party, these appointments were being assigned to Mr. Batra who although, having close ties to top political party officials was an "outsider with no party position or history in this County" and with no legal assistance to the "Organization". The attorneys were seeking to perpetuate the receipt of fiduciary appointments which they considered their entitlement based on their service and affiliation to the party.
The media questioned the apparent connection between service to the political party and receipt of fiduciary appointments in the Brooklyn Supreme Court. To diffuse the public outcry Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals, announced in January 2000 a program to reform the State’s fiduciary appointment process. She created the Commission on Fiduciary Appointments to examine the existing rules and practices and to make recommendations for improvement. Judge Kaye also established the Office of Special Inspector General for Fiduciary Appointments, headed by Special Inspector General Sherrill R. Spatz. In addition to the Report on Fiduciary Appointments a Report containing recommendations for change was also issued in that same month of December 2001.
The Special Inspector General after auditing thousands of court files in the City and State of New York, and interviewing many of the individuals involved in the cases, found that the most lucrative court appointments often go to a select small group of well-connected lawyers, with political ties or personal relationships with judges and to retired and former judges. The fiduciary appointments were manipulated to extract the maximum fees from the assets of the incapacitated person or of the litigant. The Commission found that when setting hourly fees, the judges often did not distinguish between legal services and routine guardianship and receivership services. The "court evaluator" appointed in guardianship proceedings to investigate whether the person was incapacitated generally received an hourly legal fee of $150 to $275 an hour even though the services were not legal in nature. In some cases they received an hourly fee of $300 for performing basic administrative tasks usually done by support staff, i.e. faxing papers, looking up phone numbers. In one case the court evaluator received compensation of $36,753 at an hourly rate of $400.00. In the New York County Court a small group of individuals 10% received 50% of the total compensation awarded, most of whom were politically well connected lawyers..
The Report goes on to say, that upon determination of incapacity a "guardian" is appointed for the personal care and for the property of the incapacitated person, who if not a member of the family is generally a private attorney. A "court examiner" is also appointed, usually a private attorney who submits his or her own report to the court evaluating the reports and accountings submitted by the guardian. All the fees and costs of the guardianship are paid from assets of the incompetent person unless he or she has minimal or no assets. The standard for determination of the amount of the fees is based on the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered. In practice it is whatever a judge does. Some judges base it on an hourly rate, while others base it on a percentage of the amounts received and disbursed by the guardian or on the percentage of the principal value of the assets of the ward . In one case the ward was billed $1,000 for a shopping trip, in another case the ward was billed $850 for a birthday cake and flowers. In examining the guardianship appointments the Commission found that the judges rarely if ever reduced the fee requests of the court appointees in cases in which the incompetent had assets
In many cases even where a member of the family or a friend was appointed as the guardian for the incompetent person the court appointed an attorney as the co-guardian. The Commission in examining a number of guardianship cases in the New York County Supreme Court found that the guardians apparently did not always act in the best interest of their wards. That the quality of care of the wards was not up to par and the preservation of the ward’s assets was not as required pursuant to fiduciary duties. In some cases guardians were also hiring attorneys, who were compensated at an hourly rate generally to do the routine reports and accountings of the guardian. In one case the incompetent’s relative and an attorney were appointed as co-guardians. The court set the compensation at $250 an hour for the attorney and $50 an hour for the relative. The ward resided in a health care facility and many of her personal needs were taken care of by the relative co-guardian. Nevertheless, within a year the attorney was granted $65,000 by the judge from the ward’s assets, which included bills for visiting an eyeglass store, attending a holiday party, exchanging clothing, inventorying the ward’s clothing and returning apartment keys.
In another case the guardian billed for 100 hours which included 4 hours billed for travel to a bank to deposit a $50 monthly social security check. The trip to the bank cost the ward $300. The guardian also billed seven hours for each court appearance. In yet another case a Manhattan Supreme Court judge appointed two guardians to handle the finances and personal needs of a retired college professor who'd suffered a stroke and needed round-the-clock help. One of the guardians resigned and was replaced by a financial manager. A few months later, the victim started to recover and wanted to start managing his own money, but his guardians would not give him any information about his finances. He hired his own attorney. A court evaluator decided the man was well enough to manage his own finances. The guardians still billed the case for another 70 hours. The guardians and their secondary appointees were paid $480,000 - out of the man’s assets.
The Commission also uncovered a case in Nassau County which reflected how court appointees in Nassau Surrogate's Court frequently have ties to the court and each other. The Report referred to a case where a retired Nassau County Court judge was appointed as guardian ad litem and a retired Surrogate judge was appointed as special referee to oversee discovery. The retired County Court judge, according to the report, in turn hired as his counsel both his daughter and the Nassau County Deputy Public Administrator. The hiring of a full time government worker to do the work was questionable. All told, about $1.5 million was paid in handling the estate, which was valued at $80 million. The former County Court judge was paid $424,500; his daughter, $44,000; the former Surrogate, $192,500; and the Deputy Public Administrator, $215,000.
Several hundred appointments were based on criteria such as relationships with judges and court personnel, on return of favors, on friendship, on providing free professional services, on political connections and for participating in the judge’s election campaign. They were the recipients of multiple lucrative appointments. Among these was a tax accountant who received appointments from a judge to whom he provided free accounting services for years. As further reward the judge recommended him to other court appointees. An attorney received over 10 appointments and approximately $250,000 in compensation from a judge for whom he regularly served as a non-paying special master. This, without regard that the attorney, appeared to lack the qualifications for these appointments and had been twice declared bankrupt. Two attorneys with high-level positions in a local political party received approximately 110 appointments between them in guardianship and receivership matters and were awarded compensation of approximately $400,000. Another attorney, the spouse of a high level managerial employee of the court system, received over 120 guardianship and receivership appointments for a total compensation of $360,000.
The law provides that the receiver’s compensation cannot exceed 5% of the total sums the receiver collects and disburses. A small percentage of the well connected were the recipients of the majority of the receivership appointments as well. The Commission also examined the "secondary appointments" the lawyers and property managers retained by the receivers. Even when the receiver was a lawyer, he or she would often retain a lawyer to perform the routine task of the receiver such as to review documents and to prepare accountings. This meant less work for the receiver, but inasmuch as the receiver was limited to the 5% fees, the receiver’s compensation would not be less by retaining counsel. In some cases the receivers would also retain accountants and other financial professionals. Often the fees of these so-called "secondary appointments" were far more lucrative than of receivers since they were compensated at an hourly rate. The Commission found that in the majority of the cases the fees of counsel and of the property managers far exceeded those of the receiver.
In many cases the attorneys were compensated for the full amount they requested even though they failed to detail the work they performed. Similarly, receivers frequently failed to specify expenditures they made, and in some cases were paid fees that exceeded the five percent statutory maximum. In one case, an objection to the final accounting was filed because the receiver had failed to specify the disbursements and explain why the amount of rent collected had varied from month to month. Yet the receiver, the lawyer for the receiver and the property manager were all awarded the entire amount they had originally sought. The attorney was then paid an additional $2,000 for litigating the receiver's final accounting.
In another case, an opposition to the receiver's final accounting was filed in which billing for boiler repair was questioned because the building did not have a boiler. The parties ultimately settled the matter. In another case, the receiver's first accounting erroneously requested an amount in excess of the statutory limit. Thereafter, the counsel to the receiver (who was the receiver's brother) prepared a second bill, and was awarded $750 for the preparation of each bill.
In a case in which the receivership lasted for approximately seven months, no rent was collected and the only money received was $1,100 from the mortgagor, the receiver requested a fee of $500, along with $6,266 for his outstanding bills which included $3,200 for counsel and $2,100 for the property manager. The petitioner opposed the payments, arguing that a property manager was not needed because the building was a vacant single family home, the property manager had never even visited the premises and the receiver had no authorization to retain counsel. The court approved the final accounting, and awarded the receiver his full fee but cut the payment for the outstanding bills to $3,500, although it did so without specifying how the receiver should distribute the money.
The Commission found that in many cases provisions of Rule 36 of the Chief Judge were violated. That rule set down the filing requirements and set certain limitations in guardianship and receivership cases. The Commission noted that even in the counties with the best rate of filing compliance, the required forms were filed in less than half of the cases, while in some other counties, the required notices of appointments, certifications of compliance and statements of award of compensation were filed in a minimal number of cases or none at all.
The Commission found that the judges flaunted the $5,000 rule - limiting that lawyers can be paid more than that amount on only one appointment in a 12 month period. In many cases the same lawyer, often a political party leader, or a former judge, received a number of appointments in one year exceeding the $5,000 compensation. Another part of the rule disregarded was the requirement to file a statement of award of compensation specifying the amount when a judge approves payment greater than $500 to a fiduciary. The Commission found that of the over 400 receiverships they reviewed in the Brooklyn courts not a single statement of award of compensation was filed and that compliance in other counties was also poor. Likewise often disregarded was the requirement that an appointee file a notice of appointment. Unless the fiduciary had filed such notice, the judge was not authorized to approve compensation. The rule also requires that persons who perform services for a receiver be appointed by the judge. This was yet another rule that was disregarded. The receivers, not the judges, appointed their counsel and property managers. The rule also prohibits the appointment of a person as a fiduciary who is related to a sitting judge in the State of New York. Additionally, the prospective appointee is required to state to the judge that the appointment will not be in violation of that rule.
The Commission reports that these "secondary appointees", rarely if ever complied with the filing requirements and so they did not consider themselves bound by Rule 36. In the Brooklyn Supreme Court two sons of a sitting judge acted as attorneys in 75% of all receivership cases, receiving over $700,000 in fees over a five year period. The two attorneys Thomas and William Garry openly defied Rule 36, by failing to certify to the judge that the appointment would not be in violation of the rules, which they could not do, because they were the sons of a sitting judge and so they could not accept the appointment, nor was their compensation reported by the judge awarding their fees. Nor was there compliance with the rule that their appointment as counsel for the receiver shall be made by the judge, because they were retained by the receiver. One of these attorneys Thomas Garry, was the complainant in that December 1999 letter, which brought on this investigation by the Commission.
In another incidence two management companies received 76% of all property manager appointments and 84% of all fees awarded from such appointments over a five-year period in one county. As in the guardianship cases the judges in approving fees often did not distinguish between legal services and services not legal in nature that should have been billed at a considerably lower rate.
In December 2001 The Commission also issued a Report summarizing its findings and making recommendations. It is noted in the Report that the problem with fiduciary appointments and non compliance with the rules goes back several decades. The Commission recommends to amend the above noted rule 36. Among these a change in what is included in the list of prospective fiduciary appointees, training for all appointees, prohibiting political party chairs from receiving appointments for two years after they no longer serve and to impose the same limitations on appointments of former judges. The full authority to select the fiduciaries remains with the judges. The filing of the required papers under Rule 36 is recommended that it should be made with a "fiduciary clerk" replacing the current practice of filing it with the Office of Court Administration. None of these recommendations have as yet been adopted.
Without a doubt there were ample rules in place to govern fiduciary appointments, but those rules were openly flaunted by the judges and lawyers. What is clearly missing from these new recommendations is that it has no penalty for the violation of any of its provisions. Not even as much as surcharge for excessive fees. What it infers to the public is that judges and lawyers are above the law, or if they steal the money it is not a criminal act.
Concurrently with the issuance of these Reports on December 4, 2001 it was announced that about a dozen judges had been referred to the Commission on Judicial Conduct for possible action against them. None of the names of the judges was revealed and their names continue to be concealed from the public. However, not one judge was removed from the bench in the year of 2001. The Commission on Judicial Conduct to this date has not punished any one of the judges involved in the fiduciary scam, nor is there any likelihood that it will. The same as to the attorneys. In fact upon contacting the Appellate Division, Second Department in charge of disciplining attorneys in Brooklyn New York, we were informed that attorneys Thomas and William Garry Jr. and Arnold Ludwig were attorneys in good standing.
You may access the full text of the Reports at the Websites noted below.
FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENTS IN NEW YORK
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENTS A report to Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman
RECOMMENDATIONS ON FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENTS IN NEW YORK December 2001
The Recommendations of the Commission were approved for the most part by the New York Court of Appeals as stated in the New York Law Journal Article below. As noted above no penalty is provided for the violation of the rules. Judges have judicial immunity and even their appointees have qualified immunity. So, it is questionable as to what improvement if any will the new or revised rules have in the appointment of fiduciaries. In the past it was not so much the absence of rules, but that the rules were broken because it was profitable and there was no punishment or even a detrimental effect to those who broke the rules.
NY Lawyers' Appointments
as Guardians Are Focus of Report, Proposals
By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
February 9, 2005
Sunshine is the best antidote to counter the "great concern" that "politically connected lawyers" are reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars to handle estates of those who die without wills, a blue-ribbon commission appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye said in a report issued Monday.
The 14-member commission, headed by Sheila Birnbaum of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, also called for legislation that would make mandatory existing guidelines for compensating counsel to public administrators. The administrators have overall responsibility for winding down the affairs of those who die without wills.
The spur to the commission's recommendations was a disciplinary proceeding against Brooklyn Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg for routinely awarding the counsel to the Brooklyn public administrator, Louis R. Rosenthal, fees that equalled 8 percent of the estates he handled, an amount 2 higher than the ceiling in the guidelines.
The Commission on Fiduciary Appointments also noted that several surrogates had "candidly admitted to political and personal ties with appointees they had selected." That testimony "gives rise to a public perception of an opaque system that operates on the basis of connections and cronyism," the report said.
Oral argument in the state Commission on Judicial Conduct case against Surrogate Feinberg took place in September (NYLJ, Sept. 24), and a decision is pending. The judicial conduct commission also charged Surrogate Feinberg with approving Mr. Rosenthal's fees without required documentation.
The Birnbaum commission also proposed remedies for a problem that surfaced since its first report was issued in December 2001.
In April 2004, a Queens grand jury reported on its investigation into systemic weaknesses that allowed a guardian to steal $272,000 from his ward. The grand jury found a key problem was a lack of oversight of the guardian, lawyer Robert B. Kress, who has been disbarred.
The remedy proposed by the Birnbaum commission was greater supervision of court examiners, who are appointed by judges to oversee the work of guardians. Judges are also responsible for appointing guardians to handle the affairs of persons unable to care for themselves.
As a result of the Birnbaum commission's earlier report, any fiduciary appointed by a judge was barred from receiving additional appointments for a year after earning $50,000 within a 12-month period. State and county leaders also were prohibited from accepting appointments as were members of their law firms.
Business of looting by fiduciaries goes on. Lawyer found the loophole to loot estates. Click here
Lawyers cozying up for appointment to judges. The quid pro quo. If do you do me a favor I do you a favor. Fees for favor Click here
Lawyers writing themselves into will as trustees remains profitable Click here.
A Brooklyn judge claims that he didn't know the exorbitant fees he approved for a former law school buddy were improper. A 2002 New York Daily News investigation revealed that Judge Feinberg routinely approved legal fees in excess of the fees approved under the rules. The News' investigation found the atterney's s' firm made more than $8 million in fees between 1997 and 2002, without filing the required affidavits detailing what he did to earn the money. That judge is now before the Judicial Commission and may be ousted. Click here.
A former Bar President appointed as referee to watch over foreclosures caught taking bribes. Click here.
The story of how Mr. Straci came to be the court-appointed co-guardian of Ms. Milani's son Christopher - and of her struggle to have him removed after the value of her son's investments dropped by about $400,000, or almost 25 percent, shows the problems and disputes that can arise in New York State's troubled system of appointing guardians for those who cannot look out for themselves. Click here.
Mismanagement of estates by public administrator was found by State Controller Alan Hevesi. The state Commission on Judicial Conduct charged Kings County Surrogate Michael Feinberg with misconduct for approving exorbitant fees. Click here.
ARTICLES ON FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENTS
OCA Issues New Rules on Fiduciary Appointments
By Daniel Wise
New York Law Journal
Tuesday, December 3, 2002
The state court system Monday unveiled new rules barring the appointment of political party leaders and high-level court employees to serve as court-appointed fiduciaries. The rules extend a ban that previously covered only judges' relatives.
The new rules, which were approved by the New York Court of Appeals with the backing of the presiding judges of the four Appellate Division departments, also ban judges from accepting appointments within their former jurisdictions for two years after they leave the bench. The rules would also prohibit any lawyer who earned more than $50,000 from court appointments in a single calendar year from receiving any new appointments in the next year.
The new rules are "a comprehensive system for reform to counter a public perception of favoritism" that erupted three years ago following the public release of a letter written by two Democratic party officials in Brooklyn complaining they were not receiving court appointments, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye said Monday. The rules were designed "to promote public trust and confidence in the judiciary and its impartiality," added Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman.
The new rules also contain a "sunshine" requirement mandating that the Office of Court Administration publish quarterly on its Web site -- and also to release to the press -- the names of those appointed as fiduciaries, as well as fees awarded to them.
The rules adopt, with minor modifications, the recommendations of a 17-member commission Judge Kaye appointed in the wake of news articles reporting that the two party officials, Thomas J. Garry and Arnold J. Ludwig, had complained in a letter widely circulated to political leaders in Brooklyn that they were being frozen out of court appointments despite their "unwavering loyalty" to the Brooklyn political party.
The Commission on Fiduciary Appointments was headed by Sheila L. Birnbaum, a senior partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. It examined the existing system judges use in appointing fiduciaries -- such as receivers in mortgage foreclosure cases and guardians for people unable to manage their affairs -- and reported its recommendations last December.
Judge Kaye also appointed Sherrill R. Spatz, a former prosecutor in Manhattan, to conduct a probe of abuses in the existing system. At approximately the same time the Birnbaum commission issued its proposals for reform, Spatz released the findings of her probe, which concluded that a small number of well-connected lawyers receive the bulk of the most lucrative court assignments. Spatz also found widespread non-compliance with existing reporting requirements and billing abuses, such as lawyers appointed as fiduciaries billing at legal rates for such mundane tasks as taking an incompetent ward out for ice cream.
With respect to guardianship appointments, Spatz reported finding "multiple and lucrative" appointments to people who "had connections to judges, political parties or court-system personnel."
Several of the additions to the Chief Judge's Rules released Monday were clearly aimed to counter a perception of favoritism by barring people connected to political leaders and high-level court employees from accepting court appointments.
Existing rules had barred the appointment of anyone who was a second cousin or more closely related to a sitting judge. The new rules extend that ban to former judges and their immediate relatives for two years after they leave the bench. The new rule, however, narrowed the Birnbaum proposal, which would have effected a statewide ban on such appointments, by limiting appointments only within the retired judge's former jurisdiction.
Judges Opposed
Even with the modification, Justice Gloria Aronin, the head of Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the City of New York, criticized the measure as not making "sense" because the abuse to be eliminated is overt political involvement, but judges "are prohibited from being politically active the entire time they are on the bench." The parallel statewide organization of Supreme Court justices had opposed the rule for similar reasons, according to Justice Leland DeGrasse, its chief.
The new rules also prohibit state and county political leaders, their immediate relatives and their law firms from accepting fiduciary appointments. The final rule added to the list of those barred the paid executive of any county political party. Similarly, those who were active in a judge's campaign for office would be barred from accepting an appointment for two years after an election, as would be their immediate family members and law firms.
A final category of people prohibited from accepting appointments includes immediate relatives of chief clerks, court attorneys or anyone in a higher job title within the court system.
A related rule, aimed at double dipping, prevents lawyers who are appointed as fiduciaries from hiring their law firms as their lawyers. The new rules also caution judges to approve fees at legal rates only for legal work. That rule was designed to prohibit situations like several found by Spatz, where fiduciaries, who were lawyers, billed at legal rates for non-legal tasks. In one instance, Spatz reported, a guardian, who was a lawyer, together with one of his employees, billed $1,275 for a visit to a nursing home in which they took a walk with their ward and bought her an ice cream cone.
The final rule slightly liberalized the Birnbaum commission proposal placing a cap on the amount of fees earned in a single year that would trigger a one-year ban on accepting new appointments. The Birnbaum commission had set the limit at $25,000, but the final rule set it at $50,000.
The one-year ban applies only to a lawyer earning more than $50,000, though the firm would be required to report to OCA at any point when its lawyers in the aggregate had earned more than $50,000 in a single calendar year.
The new rules also mandate that fiduciaries meet specified training and experience requirements to obtain court appointments. The rules further specify that the lists of qualified candidates, together with the required qualifications, be subdivided according to the type of appointment involved, such as a guardian or receiver. Previously, lawyers had to ask only that they be appointed on a general list maintained by OCA from which judges were required to make their appointments.
A year ago, when the Birnbaum report was issued, OCA announced that it had already put in place a system to make sure all qualification requirements were met and all reporting requirements, including those relating to fees, were complied with. The system involved the appointment of a fiduciary clerk in each county who must certify fees before they can be released to a fiduciary.
Training Requirements For Fiduciaries Announced
March 7 2003
Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman announced the week of March 7, 2003 training requirements for lawyers interested in qualifying for the court-appointed positions as fiduciary. However, secondary appointees -- those who are appointed by fiduciaries with court approval to perform professional services, including lawyers, accountants, appraisers and property managers -- will not be required to take a course. To read the full article Click here.
Reported in the June 17, 2003 edition of the New York Law Journal is that Bar Group Calls for repeal of Restrictions.
A group of attorneys Tuesday called on the Office of Court Administration to rescind the recent restrictions on court-appointed law guardians, saying the new rules unfairly limit their practices and ultimately hurt children. During a press conference at Nassau County Supreme Court, about 25 members of the Nassau County Bar Association announced a resolution passed by the organization asking for Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and the OCA to change the new revisions to Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Judge. To read the full article Click here.
Contributions to Campaigns of Candidates
For Surrogate, and Appointments
By Surrogates of Guardians Ad Litem
Report of the Committee on Government Ethics
of the Association of the Bar
of the City of New York
July 1998
This is yet another report on fiduciary appointments. It is by The Committee on Government Ethics of The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The Committe conducted a study of the campaign finances of four Surrogate's Court judges to determine whether there is a correlation between lawyers' campaign contributions and guardian ad litem appointments. The Committee admits to finding at least two cases, with an obvious correlation between campaign contributions and such appointments.
Currently there are six Surrogate Judges in New York City.
For the full report go to: http://www.abcny.org/reports/show_html.php?rid=42
The guardianship abuses continue unabated see: http://www.stopguardianabuse.org
Source: http://www.judicialaccountability.org/patronage.htm
WHITE COLLAR CRIME IS EVERYWHERE YOU JUST HAVE TO OPEN YOUR EYES AND YOUR MIND TO SEE IT!
http://u-have-no-rights.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
SPEAK UP!