Courting reform

Justice should be blind.

When Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, Bronx Democratic Party Counsel Howard Vargas and politico Lorraine Coyle are all repeatedly chosen for lucrative discretionary positions by Bronx courts — it’s a pretty good sign that some judges feel the need to sneak a peek at the political credentials of their appointees. 

Over the course of reporting a four-part series with students at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, The Press determined that statewide reforms put in place in 2003 by then Judge Judith Kaye haven’t gone far enough to stem the tide of political patronage in Bronx courts.  

The commission discussed barring all elected officials from receiving appointments, but decided only to disallow state and county political party chairs. Compensation caps for individuals were instituted, but there are no strictures against attorneys working with partners to exceed the limits. The commission’s stated goal was to stop political patronage in the courthouse, but some judges continue to appoint political insiders with a track record of failure. 

Carl Heastie, chair of the Bronx Democrats, is barred from work as a court-appointed attorney, but Mr. Dinowitz, the county party’s second-in-command, is not. Howard Vargas, the party counsel, is also free to receive appointments. 

Both men are popular with certain judges.

While The Press investigation found that Mr. Dinowitz likely benefits in the high number of appointments he receives from his political clout, no one is saying that he hasn’t done his job well.

But Howard Vargas, with long-standing ties to Bronx Democrats, is a cautionary tale of what can happen when politics trumps competence. 

With Mr. Vargas as the receiver, five buildings have been added to the city’s list of most distressed properties. Many tenants in buildings like 2239 Creston Ave. in Fordham Heights live in squalor while Mr. Vargas collects up to 5 percent of their rent. 

Despite his troubling performance, Mr. Vargas never seems to have trouble landing more appointments. 

The Office of Court Administration should revisit its rules and amend them to exclude a wider array of political operatives from receiving appointments so that judges cannot assign those who they rely on most heavily to win elections. 

When it comes to receiverships for distressed properties facing foreclosure, they should use a set of accepted standards to make appointments based on merit. 

In 2009, attorney Lorraine Coyle — to her credit — had herself removed from a complicated receivership case after realizing she was in over her head. Yet within months she received new receivership appointments. 

In a recent letter to The Press, Ms. Coyle said she believes such positions are better off in the hands of managing agents. We agree. 

As the number of properties in the early stages of foreclosure climbed to 11,877 in 2012, reforming the rules that govern how distressed properties are cared for is more vital than ever. 

Kerri White, a tenant organizer with the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, said housing groups are urging judges to choose from a list of receivers who have experience with distressed properties.

The OCA has meet with UHAB to discuss some of its suggestions — a good start toward instituting changes that would prioritize the wellbeing of tenants and property over the financial wellbeing of appointees with political connections. 

But the OCA must also do a better job enforcing existing regulations. 

Compensation limits were instituted to stop the prominent role patronage played in court appointments, but such rules are meaningless if they aren’t enforced. 

There is a reason that fiduciary appointments are made to individual attorneys, not to law firms. The presumption, enshrined in the rules, is that the named attorney will be personally responsible for what is always a sensitive assignment. It is why attorneys are obligated to personally visit those whose affairs they are overseeing.

State Sen. Jeff Klein and his law partner, Dominick Calderoni, worked as an apparent tag team on several assignments. As a result, it’s unclear whether or not they complied with rules. Required documents detailing their law firm’s earnings were not available at the Office of Court Administration. 

 What we do know is that people who had Mr. Klein assigned to handle their vital matters believed that Mr. Calderoni — who, for a time, had been disallowed from receiving appointments because he had maxed out his earnings — was responsible for their care. 

The law firm loophole should be closed by explicitly requiring attorneys to complete work on their own cases so that nobody is confused about the identity of their legal guardian and so that compensation limits are not exceeded.

Consequences should follow for those who fail to document how they conducted their cases. 

Justice should not only be blind, its administration should be transparent. Unless these cases are open to public scrutiny, it is impossible to determine whether vulnerable people under the care of court-appointed attorneys are being fairly represented. 

During the course of our investigation, we were alarmed to learn that Bronx courts have moved backward in this regard. 

In 2006, such court records were provided without delay or redaction from the Bronx County Clerk’s office. They are still readily available in every borough except the Bronx. 

There is no reason for any additional restrictions and the County Clerk’s office should revert to its previous policy of releasing court documents upon request. 

Political patronage has victims. At minimum, there are the hundreds of approved lawyers who are passed over for jobs given to politically connected attorneys.

At the other end of the spectrum are the tenants who live under the collapsed ceilings and walk through the decrepit hallways at 2239 Creston Ave. 

It’s time we stop giving those at the top of the totem poll a free pass to benefit from life’s most unfortunate circumstances.