Four Takeaways From Our Investigation Into New York’s Judicial Patronage Problem

When lawyers are appointed by judges based on connections, not competence, clients may be forced to pay for less than stellar representation. And when a politically connected lawyer appears before the same judge who appointed them, it can raise other parties’ suspicions in the case.

Here are four key takeaways from our investigation.

Working Around the Kaye Rules

Kaye’s 2002 rules barred a state or county political party chair, executive director, or their “equivalent” from gaining appointment in guardianship, estate and foreclosure proceedings. Also barred: Any law firm “associated” with such a political party official.

“Public confidence in the courts is put at risk when judicial appointments are based on considerations other than merit,” Kaye said in 2000. “Simply put, the public must have faith that the courts operate free of favoritism and partiality.”

But those rules don’t always account for officials with alternative titles who wield significant, but softer, influence.

Tens of Millions of Dollars in Queens

Three decades ago, critics held up Gerard Sweeney’s appointment in Queens as a major example of patronage. All these years later, the appointment continues.

Sweeney was once law chair of the Queens Democratic Party, as well as the campaign treasurer for the party chair during the 1990s. In 1992, the borough’s Surrogate’s Court judge granted Sweeney perhaps the most plum judicial appointment in the entire state — counsel to the Queens County Public Administrator.

Sweeney’s law firm, Sweeney, Reich & Bolz, has reaped many tens of millions of dollars from the post, including more than $3.2 million in 2023.

In 2006, a Kaye amendment to the rules added “counsel to the public administration” to the list of positions that could not be held by an attorney who worked at a law firm “associated” with a party chair or executive director.

The rules also barred a counsel to the public administrator from working at a law firm associated with someone who is the “equivalent” of party chair or executive director.

No one holds the formal title of “executive director” in the county Democratic Party. But the partners at Sweeney, Reich & Bolz have long played a major role in the party’s operations, especially Michael Reich, the party’s longtime “executive secretary.”

Reich has served as a party spokesperson and election lawyer; has overseen party judicial convention meetings; and, along with partner Frank Bolz, comprises two-thirds of a panel that vets potential judges seeking the party’s endorsement.

But Reich does not hold the title of “executive director,” and a 2016 revision to the court rules — which spelled out what could be considered the “equivalent” of a chair or executive director — did not cover Reich, either.

In a lawsuit last year, Sweeney’s political ties to the Queens Surrogate’s Court were used to cast doubt on then-Surrogate Judge Peter Kelly’s impartiality. The lawsuit contended Kelly had improperly favored Sweenedy during settlement negotiations, and alleged the root cause was an “old-time but still operational” political machine in which a “select group of individuals maintain tight control” over a “massive patronage mill.”

A Major Force in the Bronx

When the Bronx Democrats have held their annual judicial nomination convention in recent years, Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz has sat at the front of the room, overseeing the meeting as party secretary. Dinowitz additionally sits on the party’s “executive committee,” which advises party chair Jamaal Bailey on judicial endorsements.

After winning election, a number of borough judges appointed Dinowitz to serve in guardianship and Surrogate’s Court cases. Since 2010, Dinowitz has received 40 appointments from Bronx judges.