44 Lawyers and Law Firms Threatening Fair Press

In recent years, the press has been confronted with a growing number of expensive legal challenges. On October 18, 2024, in an act that could be perceived as threatening to the press, the New York Law Journal (NYLJ) published “Bad Things Happen in the Dark: Attorneys Must Speak Up When Misleading News Reports Target Our Judiciary”, an article that critiques the reporting of award-winning investigative reporter Sarah Wallace. The authors—lawyers Phillip Katz, Daniel Lipschutz, and Daniel Pettit—along with 44 legal professionals and law firms who endorsed the piece, express concerns regarding Wallace’s coverage of Justice Kathleen Waterman-Marshall. Waterman-Marshall has served as a judge in the New York County Supreme Court since 2021, following a brief tenure in Family Court.

Wallace reports serious instances of misconduct in cases involving Justice Waterman-Marshall (she has also reported on similar misconduct by two other New York judges). In response to Wallace's reporting, the authors—and endorsees of the article—said that “sensational character assassination pieces laden with misleading, selective information 'are unfair and demand' fair press.”


Endorsees Appear to Attack Free Press

With such a large group of legal professionals questioning Wallace's integrity, it may be reasonable to suggest that the authors and endorsees are aligning themselves with a growing trend of using the legal system to intimidate or silence journalists who criticize them. For examples of this pattern, consider ProPublica's “Our Editor Won a 6-Year Legal Battle. It Didn’t Feel Like a Victory” or Columbia Journalism Review's “What a Costly Lawsuit Against Investigative Reporting Looks Like”, which notes that "over the past decade, the press has faced an increasing number of costly lawsuits", a trend that has become a "playbook" for silencing critical reporting.

It is widely recognized that funding for local news has been declining for nearly two decades, largely due to the loss of advertising revenue to big tech companies like Facebook and Google. As Northwestern’s Local News Initiative highlights in its The State of Local News 2024 report: “The loss of local newspapers is continuing at an alarming pace, deepening the local news crisis and further depriving people of the information they need to make informed decisions.” In this context, local newsrooms struggling to meet payroll may be hesitant to cover stories involving NY judges, especially if those judges can rally support from multiple law firms, retired judges, and others. This threat is compounded by the recent defamation case involving Trump and ABC News, where the network settled despite the common hesitation of major news organizations, who typically avoid such settlements due to concerns over setting a dangerous precedent and the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

It is contradictory to the professional oath of legal professionals that a large collective group appears to be using, or at least giving the appearance of using, the third branch of government to challenge the freedoms of the press in our nation. New York lawyers are sworn to support the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed that a free press is a foundational element of our democracy. In 1978, the Court said, “That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively.”

The authors (and endorsees) question Wallace’s ethics and integrity, stating, “Wallace and her camera crew audaciously pursued Judge Waterman-Marshall in public when she was not on the bench,” and describe Justice Waterman-Marshall as a 'defenseless judge’. However, Wallace’s actions appear to be consistent with widely accepted journalistic ethics. For instance, Wallace’s efforts to speak with Justice Waterman-Marshall, before publishing a negative report, ensured she met the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics requirement to “diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.” Additionally, Wallace’s decision to approach Waterman-Marshall in a public setting while using her camera followed SPJ’s ethical guideline to “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information.” Finally, Wallace’s choice to focus her reporting on Waterman-Marshall’s work as a public official—whose position of power and absolute immunity makes the term “defenseless” seem misapplied—aligns with ProPublica’s Code of Ethics, which follows a “proud tradition of holding the powerful accountable.”

Too Close to the Issue

The authors admit that they “have all practiced before Waterman-Marshall”, meaning they were the lawyers involved in cases decided by her. Therefore, the authors (and endorsees) are, at best, not in a position to provide unbiased commentary on the situation. Yet they do not hold back. According to the authors (and endorsees), Wallace's reporting on a judge “does untold damage to our justice system.”

This also raises questions about the authors' (and endorsees') ethics or legal ability to provide unbiased commentary on the situation. For example, a 2022 New York court judicial ethics opinion found that when a lawyer provides support to a judge during inquiries into that judge’s judicial conduct, the judge “might either unconsciously favor that law firm in gratitude for much-needed support at a critical professional juncture,” making a judge disqualified from any proceedings involving that attorney, as well as “disqualified in matters involving the partners and associates of the attorney.” Moreover, as our interactive shows, there are other issues that raise questions about unbiased journalistic commentary and legal ethics, and in some cases, may suggest potential violations of legislation—such as failure to report under Part 36, which governs the selection and appointment of legal professionals in court cases—or instances where Justice Waterman-Marshall has heard cases involving lawyers and law firms that donated to her political campaign.

Misleading and Selective

The authors also implied that the court-ordered financial obligations of the victims Wallace cited were simply to “pay child support for their children”, however, this characterization is somewhat misleading and selective. For example, in the primary court case they chose to highlight, involving anesthesiologist Sanjay Tewari, the 'substantial court-ordered financial obligations' mentioned by the authors were not limited to child support, but (based on documents reviewed by JuriSee) also included a court order to pay $130,000 in legal fees in addition the $26,039 he had already paid to his ex-wife’s lawyer.

Justice Waterman-Marshall ordered Tewari to pay legal fees despite a New York bankruptcy court and the opposing party's law firm stating that he was insolvent, with the court going as far as to declare: “there's no assets to administer.” Tewari was imprisoned for 100 days at Rikers Island, a notoriously violent, maximum-security facility, without being provided a lawyer, or a trial. According to Tewari, his child support obligations were paid in full before he was placed in Rikers Island. It is also worth noting (based on documents reviewed by JuriSee) that Justice Waterman-Marshall ordered Tewari to pay an additional $900,000 in total legal fees before the end of the case, bringing his total court ordered legal fees bill to $1,056,039. For comparison, Tewari states he paid $100,000 for his own lawyer.

The authors (and many of the endorsees) are, have been, or may hope to be beneficiaries of judges who order and enforce measures to compel individuals to pay substantial legal fee debts. These fees benefit the legal professionals, but the individuals have little control over incurring them. This raises questions about the impartiality of the authors' comments regarding the reported misconduct by Waterman-Marshall. JuriSee has heard from numerous New York State litigants and has gathered evidence suggesting that the ordering of such fees—regardless of an individual's ability to pay—may be a recurring issue in New York courts.

We reached out to authors and endorsees of this article for comment on the concerns regarding the information presented. January Levien declined to comment. We did not receive a response back from others.

Fees Ordered Lack Oversight and Consistency

While this story might initially appear to be about a small set of wealthy individuals being ordered to hand over their substantial wealth, it is not. We have spoken with several litigants in middle- and lower-income tax brackets, including individuals living in verifiable poverty. Many of these individuals have been ordered to pay legal-related fees, often at rates beyond their means, and in some cases, without a financial assessment by the judge to justify these decisions.

Such orders are made by judges with limited oversight and a lack of consistency. As Tewari’s case illustrates, where court-ordered fees reached over $1 million, there are significant sums of money being transferred to lawyers during divorce proceedings, much of it under court order.

Millions of dollars in court-ordered fees are involved, which is well-documented. Even within the limited oversight framework that Part 36 operates under—and considering the missing appointments in the Part 36 database—the total fees ordered in 2023 amounted to $85,634,842 for New York County alone. For 2024, the total fees recorded were $78,595,568, though this figure may not yet include all paid fees. To highlight the scale of these fees, in 2023, the highest paid recipient reported $1,286,675 in fees, and approximately 300 recipients exceeded the annual allowable cap of $75,000. These numbers pertain solely to New York County and include only self-reported data from appointees.

JuriSee has not been able to identify clear oversight mechanisms or accurate public accounting of fees ordered by judges through court administration. Part 36 runs a public database that tracks professionals such as legal aid attorneys (18bs), actuaries, Attorneys for the Child (AFC), or Guardians Ad Litem (GAL), as well as related fees that appointees are required to self-report. However, we found that this database is missing numerous required appointment reports. We also believe that the oversight purview of Part 36 may have been interpreted narrowly by court administrators, potentially leaving many court appointments by judges without oversight. This raises questions about whether the oversight process fully aligns with the intentions of the legislation passed by elected officials.

We reached out to Part 36’s named counsel, Meredith Jones, for clarification but were redirected to a general email for the courts. At the time of this publication, we have not received a response on this matter.

The Public Has a Right to Know

Often, when legal cases are discussed publicly, there is a focus on the nuances of the case and whether individuals should have received a particular outcome. This is particularly true for divorce cases, where personal details may be highlighted, sometimes attracting widespread attention (e.g., the cases of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, or Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt). A focus on sensational details, or public opinion on who is right or wrong, can sometimes distract from the core legal issues at hand.

In a well-functioning society, the responsibility for determining just outcomes in legal cases ultimately rests with the courts, including those cases already decided by and still before Justice Waterman-Marshall, as referenced by the authors and endorsees in the NYLJ article.

JuriSee has been informed, and it has been reported by Wallace, that several grievances have been filed against Justice Waterman-Marshall, alleging serious misconduct. Given this, the more substantial questions of public interest in these cases—particularly those involving serious allegations of misconduct—are: Do we have an impartial judiciary that can be trusted to resolve these issues with justice? And are we receiving accurate, balanced information from our third branch of government?

Allegations that a judge might have disregarded due process or engaged in improper conduct raise important concerns about the integrity of the justice system. The public has a right to know.

The Challenge of Fair Press for the Courts

Fair press coverage on such cases is challenging due to several factors, which go beyond the lack of oversight of judges’ court-ordered fees and concerns about the possible misuse of the legal field to intimidate journalists. For example, in New York, complaints filed against a judge with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct are automatically deemed confidential. Hearings on any misconduct are conducted in closed courtrooms, with no public notice.

Clear criteria for when a grievance would lead to action or dismissal are not publicly available. The commission expunges complaints unless charges are brought, and charges have only been filed against a Supreme Court judge eight times in the past 20 years, with no charges brought against any New York County Supreme Court judge. This lack of transparency means that potential patterns of judicial misconduct are not easily discoverable. Additionally, matrimonial court records in New York are automatically deemed confidential (unlike other court records, which are by default public), further limiting the ability to report on these cases.

These challenges, combined with concerns about litigants fearing retaliation for speaking out and judges closing courtrooms that are meant to be public, make it difficult to fully establish the facts. JuriSee has evidence suggesting that similar challenges exist in other areas of civil court practice.

Given the confidentiality of the records and the closed nature of hearings regarding grievances against Justice Waterman-Marshall, reporting on the situation is constrained, limiting the ability to cover it in an open and impartial manner. We have been denied the opportunity to speak with Robert Tembeckjian, the commission's Administrator & Counsel, or any representative of the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, regarding what appears to be an overly broad confidentiality policy that impacts the public's ability to understand the commission's work.

New York State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal has sponsored Senate Bill S4398, which has passed the Senate, calling for the proceedings of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct to be “made public when a judge is formally charged with misconduct [emphasis added].” However, it is not immediately clear how the provisions of Senate Bill S4398 differ significantly from the commission’s current practices.

The commission already publishes its decisions if it decides to act in a case. Additionally, the publication of formal actions taken in regards to misconduct—referred to as “decisions” when a judge is formally charged with misconduct—is already permitted under Title 22 NYCRR Parts 7001.

We have not yet received a response from Senator Hoylman-Sigal following our requests for clarification.


JuriSee Supports Fair Press of the Third Branch

While many legal professionals respect the rule of law and are not involved in illicit activities, it remains to be seen whether the responsible oversight bodies will ensure greater accountability within the judicial system to protect it.

This includes whether Part 36, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, and other relevant bodies choose to maintain legislated rules and to hold those in positions of power accountable. It is also unclear whether our legislators and the Commission will take further action to address grievances filed against Justice Waterman-Marshall, or any other judges facing allegations of misconduct, as these matters are of significant public interest.

As noted by the authors and endorsees: 'bad things happen in the dark’. We welcome investigative reporting on the third branch of government, as transparency and accountability are key.

JuriSee champions a fair and open press and supports the need for local news to be free to report on these important matters.

The 44 Law Firms and Individual Endorsees

Adria S. Hillman, Esq.
Alla Kurolapnik, Esq.
Allan E. Mayefsky, Esq.
Ankit Kapoor, Esq.
Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP
Berkman Bottger Newman & Schein LLP
Bikel Rosenthal & Schanfield, LLP
Cavallo Law PLLC
Cohen Clair Lans Greifer & Simpson LLP
Daniel B. Nottes, Esq.
David Aronson, Esq.
Hon. Douglas E. Hoffman, Esq. (Ret.)
Elise A. Blaustein, Esq.
Garr Silpe, P.C.
Green Kaminer Min & Rockmore LLP
Harriet Newman Cohen, Esq.
J. Kaplan & Associates, PLLC
Jan Levien, Esq.
Hon. Jane Pearl, Esq. (Ret.)
Jennifer P. Brown, Esq.
Kevin M. McDonough, Esq.
Krauss Shaknes Tallentire & Messeri LLP
Law Office of Larry Carlin
The Law Firm of Laurence P. Greenberg
Leigh Baseheart Kahn, Esq.
Matthew C. Kesten, Esq.
Hon. Matthew F. Cooper, Esq. (Ret.)
Margery A. Greenberg, founding partner at Segal & Greenberg LLP Marilyn T. Sugarman, Esq.
Martha Cohen Stine, Esq.
Michael Beyda, Esq. partner at Chemtob Moss Forman & Beyda, LLP Michael T. Etzrodt, Esq.
Moses Richards Notaro & Tankha, LLP
Pamela M. Sloan, Esq.
Rabin Schumann and Partners LLP
Randi L. Karmel, PLLC
Robert S. Michaels, P.C.
RoseAnn C. Branda, executive partner, Abrams Fensterman, LLP Rottenstreich Farley Bronstein Fisher Potter Hodas LLP
Samuel J. Ferrara, Esq.
Sandra L. Schpoont, Esq.
Steven J. Mandel, Esq.
Susan L. Bender, Esq.
Virginia A. LoPreto, Esq.

[Full disclosure: This author has no ties with Waterman-Marshall. However, I did have a case before one of the many listed endorsees, the retired judge, Matthew F. Cooper, in 2019 shortly before his retirement, with final decisions made by a different judge]