(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty)
The New York state fraud case against former president Donald Trump made a big splash when it was filed, but now that he’s facing actual criminal counts, well, this one has taken a back seat in popular imagination. It’s a series of financial crimes — never the sexiest legal case — and missing the je ne sais quoi of top secret clearance, violent coup, hush payments, or light treason the other cases boast. But the case still poses quite the legal risk to Trump and his business, and the lawyers are still sloughing away zealously advocating for their client. Perhaps too zealously.
Because it’s one thing to advocate for a loser of an argument, it’s quite another to continue making the argument after the judge — and appellate court — has ruled on the issue.
Managing Partners are Navigating the AI Inflection Point.
New executive research from Ari Kaplan explores how law firm leaders are responding to changing client expectations, evolving economics, talent transformation, and AI governance.
As reported by Law360, New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron heard arguments on the attorney general’s motion for sanctions for repeatedly advancing arguments already dismissed. And Judge Engoron let Trump attorney Chris Kise know exactly how little he appreciated hearing the same — bad — arguments over and over.
The judge said the first time he heard Trump’s argument that the attorney general lacked standing or capacity to sue, “I thought that was a joke.”
“Standing? This statute is custom-made for the attorney general to bring a case like this. How could you possibly say she doesn’t have standing?” the judge asked.
“I thought: These arguments are crazy. Literally, literally crazy,” Justice Engoron said, recalling how he called them “borderline frivolous” in a previous decision. “Then, the appellate division affirms me. Twice.”
“The law on sanctions is if you’ve been warned, don’t do it,” the judge said.
Judge Engoron hasn’t yet ruled on the sanction motion (or competing summary judgment motions heard the same day) but he’s definitely losing his patience.
How To Avoid Hallucinations: A Legal Research AI That Works Like A Junior Lawyer
Can we make legal research AI stop hallucinating? The answer is yes – and it’s how attorneys approach legal research with their associates.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].