S2 E54 The Scandal Behind Who Picks NYC Judges - updated

Who should decide who becomes a judge in New York City?
In this episode of Deep Dive, we examine the controversy surrounding Ali Najmi's appointment to lead New York City's judicial nominations board and the questions that have been raised about potential conflicts of interest, public confidence, and the integrity of the judicial selection process.

We'll explore:
• Allegations regarding conflicts between private legal work and public responsibilities.
• The implications of simultaneously serving as a legal advisor to the Mayor while litigating against the City.
• Questions surrounding professional affiliations and ongoing federal RICO suits involving associated parties.
• Claims regarding the composition of the judicial nominations committee and concerns over representation.
• Why the appearance of impartiality is just as important as impartiality itself when public confidence in the judiciary is at stake.

As always, Deep Dive examines the publicly reported facts, legal filings, and broader policy implications—not personalities. The goal is to encourage informed discussion about transparency, ethics, and accountability in our institutions.

Watch the full episode and decide for yourself.

#DeepDive #JudicialEthics #NewYorkCity #RuleOfLaw #GovernmentAccountability #LegalNews #PublicIntegrity #InsuranceIntelligence

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:07

Imagine for a second um being the head referee for a professional sports league.

SPEAKER_02 0:13

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 0:14

You're the person in charge of, you know, hiring, firing, and evaluating all the officials on the field.

SPEAKER_02 0:19

Right, big job.

SPEAKER_00 0:20

But like at the exact same time, you are personally suing that very same league's front office for millions of dollars in this highly publicized courtroom battle.

SPEAKER_01 0:31

Wow. Okay. That is, yeah, that's a mess.

SPEAKER_00 0:34

Right. You have to wonder, I mean, how long could you realistically maintain that kind of structural conflict before the fans, the players, and the owners start questioning the integrity of like every single call made on the field?

SPEAKER_02 0:47

Aaron Powell You'd be inviting an administrative nightmare, honestly. Because the immediate question wouldn't even be about your qualifications or your knowledge of the rule book. It would be entirely about how on earth you manage that firewall between your private financial interests and your, you know, your public objective duties.

SPEAKER_00 1:03

Aaron Powell And that murky, really complicated intersection of private interests and public duty is exactly the landscape we are trekking into today.

SPEAKER_01 1:11

For sure.

SPEAKER_00 1:12

So welcome to this deep dive. Today, our mission is to unpack a fiery, incredibly pointed editorial published by the New York Post on July 29th, 2026. Aaron Powell It's quite the piece. It really is. The target of this editorial is Ali Najmi. So he is the chairman of New York City Mayor Zaran Mamdani's advisory committee on the judiciary.

SPEAKER_01 1:32

And this piece, I mean, it pulls absolutely no punches regarding the mayor's inner circle.

SPEAKER_00 1:37

None whatsoever. But uh before we get into the mechanics of this, I need to flag something really crucial for you, the listener.

SPEAKER_01 1:44

Right, the update.

SPEAKER_00 1:45

Exactly. This is a special updated deep dive. We are replacing our previous analysis of this editorial because on July 30, the New York Post issued a highly significant editor's note.

SPEAKER_01 1:55

Yeah, and it's a big one.

SPEAKER_00 1:57

It's massive. They updated a huge legal distinction regarding a law firm associated with Najmi. We're going to dissect exactly what changed in their text and you know, why that procedural difference matters so much for how we consume political news.

SPEAKER_02 2:10

Absolutely. And we also need to like set a baseline about our role here today.

SPEAKER_00 2:14

Yes, very important.

SPEAKER_02 2:16

Because the source material we're looking at, it contains heavily politically charged opinions, some intense structural critiques, and frankly, some very serious allegations from the Post against City Hall.

SPEAKER_00 2:28

Right. And to be clear, we are not taking sides. No. We are not endorsing the viewpoints of the New York Post, nor are we acting as like a defense team for Mayor Mondani's administration.

SPEAKER_01 2:38

Exactly.

SPEAKER_00 2:39

Our only goal is to impartially convey and analyze the ideas, the logical architecture of these arguments, and those very specific corrections contained within the original text. Okay, let's unpack this. Let's do it. So we have to start with the baseline of what Najmi is actually doing. Because the core of the New York Post's argument is this massive contradiction between his private legal actions and his public service.

SPEAKER_02 3:03

Right, the dual roles.

SPEAKER_00 3:05

Right. In January of 2026, Mayor Mamdani appointed Najmi as the chairman of the mayor's advisory committee on the judiciary.

SPEAKER_02 3:11

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 3:12

For those who, you know, don't spend their days tracking municipal bureaucracy, what is the actual mechanical power of that role?

SPEAKER_02 3:19

Well, it is arguably one of the most consequential, quiet roles in city government.

SPEAKER_00 3:24

Quiet, how?

SPEAKER_02 3:25

Because this committee is the body that vets, evaluates, and ultimately recommends who gets to sit on the bench in New York City's criminal and family courts.

SPEAKER_00 3:34

Oh wow.

SPEAKER_02 3:35

Yeah, as well as interim appointments to the civil court. So the chairman leads the body that really shapes the jurisprudence of the entire city.

SPEAKER_00 3:44

That's huge.

SPEAKER_02 3:44

It is. I mean, we're talking about the people making sweeping legal decisions that affect the daily lives, the liberty, and the property of New Yorkers. It's a position requiring immense civic trust.

SPEAKER_00 3:56

Okay. But simultaneously, he maintains a very active private legal practice. He does. He handles criminal defense, civil rights, and election law. And right now, as he sits as the chief judge picker, basically he is actively suing the city. Yeah. He's representing the Mahajan family in what is just an undeniably tragic case. Their 18-year-old son, Ramach Mahajan, died in a fatal fall from a runaway Central Park horse carriage.

SPEAKER_02 4:21

It's awful.

SPEAKER_00 4:21

Truly awful. Yeah. And Najmi is leading the litigation against the city on their behalf.

SPEAKER_02 4:26

So I have to ask: is the editorial arguing that citizens like the Mahajan family shouldn't sue the city? Or just that the specific person picking the city's judges shouldn't be the one leading the lawsuit?

SPEAKER_00 4:39

If we connect this to the bigger picture, the post is very careful to clarify it's entirely the latter.

SPEAKER_01 4:44

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 4:45

The editorial is not disputing the Mahajan family's fundamental right to legal representation, not at all. Nor their right to seek redress in the courts after a profound tragedy like that.

SPEAKER_02 4:56

Aaron Powell Right. I mean the American legal system guarantees that, right?

SPEAKER_00 4:59

Aaron Powell Exactly. What they are attacking is the structural viability of who is providing that representation, you know, given his specific municipal day job.

SPEAKER_02 5:08

Trevor Burrus Because the optics of that overlap are just incredibly messy. I mean, you are extracting damages from the city on Monday and staffing its courts on Tuesday. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 5:17

Yeah. I'd take it a step further than just optics, honestly.

SPEAKER_02 5:20

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Yeah. The editorial asserts it is a disqualifying entanglement. Because the mechanism of a lawsuit requires you to be entirely adversarial to the municipal government.

SPEAKER_00 5:31

Trevor Burrus We're fighting them.

SPEAKER_02 5:32

Trevor Burrus Right. You are fighting city lawyers tooth and nail, attempting to prove the city's negligence. So the Post is arguing that you cannot serve two masters when one is the municipal government that appointed you and the other is a private plaintiff trying to extract financial damages from that very same government.

SPEAKER_00 5:49

Trevor Burrus It's a blatant conflict. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02 5:51

Right. Like how do you sit in a committee room and objectively select the judges who might preside over cases with identical fact patterns to the one you are currently litigating?

SPEAKER_00 6:00

Trevor Burrus Right, right. And that actually brings us to a fascinating media literacy moment. And really it's the beating heart of this updated deep dive.

SPEAKER_02 6:09

Yes, the correction.

SPEAKER_00 6:10

We need to move from Najmi's direct practice to his professional affiliations, specifically focusing on the update that prompted this re-recording. So Najmi is listed as being of counsel with the firm calls Lyakis Law. Now, in the original July 29 editorial, the text explicitly stated that Lyakis Law was, and I'm quoting here, under federal investigation for allegedly operating as a fraudulent enterprise.

SPEAKER_02 6:34

Which is an incredibly heavy radioactive claim to print about any legal entity.

SPEAKER_00 6:39

It's huge. But then comes the July 30 correction. The updated text clarifies that Liacus Law is actually facing a lawsuit in federal court, alleging it operates as a fraudulent enterprise.

SPEAKER_01 6:50

That's a massive shift.

SPEAKER_00 6:52

It is. Okay. Unpack that for us.

SPEAKER_02 7:34

Well, this is a monumental distinction, which is exactly why the New York Post Editorial Board had to issue the formal correction. There is a massive mechanical difference between a federal criminal probe initiated by the Department of Justice and a pending civil lawsuit filed by a private party that just happens to be filed in a federal jurisdiction.

SPEAKER_00 7:54

Let's break down the mechanics of that. I mean, when a reader sees federal investigation, they are picturing the FBI. They're picturing wiretaps, subpoenas, the full weight and investigative rigor of the United States government coming down after, you know, establishing probable cause.

SPEAKER_02 8:10

Aaron Powell That's the prevailing narrative, yes. A federal investigation implies that the government itself has looked at preliminary evidence, found potential criminal activity, and deployed its vast resources to investigate. But a civil lawsuit in federal court, however, that operates on a completely different starting line. In the US civil system, practically anyone can file a complaint alleging practically anything.

SPEAKER_00 8:34

Wow.

SPEAKER_02 8:34

Yeah. A private plaintiff drafted a document containing these severe allegations, the sham lawsuits, padded medical bills, and filed it.

SPEAKER_00 8:43

Which means, in the eyes of the law, until there's an actual judgment, those are just words on a piece of paper filed by an adversary, not a determination of fraud made by federal prosecutors.

SPEAKER_02 8:54

That is the crux of the correction. It accurately reflects the procedural posture of pending litigation. However, we also have to look at why the editorial board still includes this detail even after the correction.

SPEAKER_00 9:06

Because it's still in the piece.

SPEAKER_02 9:07

Right. Even downgraded to a civil allegation, they are arguing that the chairman of the mayor's judicial committee shouldn't be professionally associated with a firm facing accusations of this specific exploitative nature.

SPEAKER_00 9:19

Aaron Powell Which brings up the term of counsel. The editorial uses this to tie Najmi to Liacus Law. But of counsel isn't just like a casual friend of the firm, right? Yeah. What is the actual mechanism of that relationship?

SPEAKER_02 9:33

Aaron Powell It's a formal, continuous legal relationship. An of counsel attorney is neither a partner nor a standard associate. Okay. It often means they have a close ongoing affiliation. They might share office resources, they might consult on specific complex cases, or they might have uh fee-splitting arrangements on cases they refer to one another. It implies a reputational and often financial tie, which is why the Post is utilizing that affiliation to question his judgment and fitness for the committee chairmanship, regardless of who filed the lawsuit against the firm.

SPEAKER_00 10:05

Okay, so we have the direct lawsuits against the city, we have the reputational ties to this of council affiliation. Yeah. But the Post's critique of his private practice doesn't stop at who he associates with. They actually trace the financial mechanics of his specific type of law back to the mayor's desk.

SPEAKER_02 10:22

They do, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 10:23

And this is where the intersection of law and politics really comes to a head, because the editorial pivots hard into macroeconomic policy.

SPEAKER_02 10:31

This is where we really see the tension between political loyalty and policy execution.

SPEAKER_00 10:36

Yeah. The editorial labels Najmi an ambulance chaser. And to be clear, that is their phrasing, not ours.

SPEAKER_02 10:42

Right.

SPEAKER_00 10:42

And they say he benefits from what are known in New York as scaffold law cases.

SPEAKER_02 10:47

Yes, scaffold law.

SPEAKER_00 10:49

So the Post argues that these specific types of lawsuits drive construction insurance premiums astronomically high. And they claim this causes housing construction costs across the city to balloon by as much as 10%.

SPEAKER_02 11:01

Which is a huge number.

SPEAKER_00 11:02

It is. And here is why that matters. They argue this dynamic actively and directly undermines Mayor Mamdani's signature policy agenda of building affordable housing.

SPEAKER_02 11:12

What's fascinating here is how the editorial uses a very niche area of tort law to paint a broader picture of a transactional political relationship.

SPEAKER_00 11:20

It feels a bit like a mayor hiring a firefighter to be a top advisor, but that advisor also happens to own a private company that manufactures and sells flamethrowers.

SPEAKER_02 11:29

That's a vivid analogy.

SPEAKER_00 11:30

Well, think about it. You have Najmi, a top political advisor and a former campaign lawyer for the mayor, sitting in this position of immense power. And yet, his private livelihood relies on a legal mechanism that the editorial claims makes the mayor's own housing platform functionally impossible.

SPEAKER_02 11:50

It's quite the contradiction.

SPEAKER_00 11:51

But let's look at the mechanics of the scaffold law, because I mean a 10% spike in construction costs is massive.

SPEAKER_02 11:57

It really is.

SPEAKER_00 11:58

How does this law actually function to drive up prices that much?

SPEAKER_02 12:02

Okay, the mechanism is called strict liability. New York is essentially the only state left in the country with a scaffold law functioning quite like this. Really?

SPEAKER_00 12:10

The only state?

SPEAKER_02 12:11

Essentially, yes. Labor Law 240 dictates that if a worker is injured in an elevation-related accident, like you know, falling off a scaffold, the property owner and the general contractor are held strictly liable.

SPEAKER_00 12:22

Meaning automatic fault.

SPEAKER_02 12:23

Pretty much. In most other types of personal injury law, you have what's called comparative negligence, where a jury decides if the injured party was partially at fault, maybe for ignoring safety protocols or being intoxicated.

SPEAKER_00 12:36

Right, splitting the blame.

SPEAKER_02 12:38

Exactly. But under the scaffold law's strict liability standard, the worker's own negligence is largely irrelevant. If they fall, the owner pays. Wow. And because liability is almost guaranteed, insurance companies know they will likely have to pay out massive multi-million dollar settlements.

SPEAKER_00 12:57

And insurance companies don't just absorb those losses out of the goodness of their hearts.

SPEAKER_02 13:02

Definitely not.

SPEAKER_00 13:02

They model that extreme risk and jack up the premiums for any developer trying to build in New York.

SPEAKER_02 13:08

Exactly how the economics play out. The developers then pass those exorbitant insurance costs down the line, which ultimately inflates the total cost of building an apartment building by that estimated 10%.

SPEAKER_00 13:19

That makes perfect sense. And that concept of hypocrisy of a dual standard for allies versus outsiders is the perfect bridge into the final and arguably most explosive section of the editorial.

SPEAKER_01 14:03

Yes, the demographics.

SPEAKER_00 14:04

Right. We move from the financial impacts to the actual demographic and ideological results of how Najmi runs this committee.

SPEAKER_02 14:11

The actual demographic composition of the mayor's advisory committee on the judiciary.

SPEAKER_00 14:16

According to the source material, this committee currently has zero Jewish members. Yeah. The editorial does not mince words here. They call this intentional discrimination. Their logical architecture is that given the vast historical number of New York lawyers who are Jewish, and the post specifically notes that this includes plenty of left-leaning or radical lawyers who would enthusiastically support Mayor Mamdani's progressive agenda, the complete omission of Jewish members cannot simply be like a statistical anomaly.

SPEAKER_02 14:46

It is a stark, severe accusation to levy against a municipal administration, especially in a city with the rich demographic and legal history of New York. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 14:54

But the deeper we go, the more complex City Hall's defense becomes. When pressed on this glaring omission, City Hall claimed they did, in fact, consider a prominent Jewish legal figure, retired appellate division justice John Leventhal.

SPEAKER_01 15:08

Right.

SPEAKER_00 15:09

And for context, an appellate justice is an institutional heavyweight.

SPEAKER_02 15:12

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 15:13

But City Hall says he failed their vetting process. Why? Because years ago he had served on the legal defense team for Gislaine Maxwell.

SPEAKER_02 15:20

And this is where the editorial board finds what they consider to be the ultimate structural flaw, the fatal contradiction in the administration's logic.

SPEAKER_00 15:30

Here's where it gets really interesting, and I have to challenge this entire concept of ideological vetting based on a lawyer's past clients.

SPEAKER_01 15:37

Go for it.

SPEAKER_00 15:38

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel. The bedrock of our adversarial legal system is that defense attorneys represent unpopular, controversial, or even profoundly guilty clients so that the state is forced to prove its case.

SPEAKER_01 15:52

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 15:53

How can a municipal administration vet out a highly qualified, retired justice for simply doing his job as a defense lawyer in a high-profile case?

SPEAKER_02 16:03

If we connect this to the bigger picture, the editorial is leveraging that exact constitutional paradox. If you apply the rule that a lawyer is politically tainted by the sins of their clients, the legal system basically breaks down.

SPEAKER_00 16:14

It has to.

SPEAKER_02 16:14

Right. If you disqualify lawyers for representing bad people, the only people left eligible for public service would be career prosecutors or corporate lawyers who only represent Fortune 500 companies.

SPEAKER_00 16:23

Aaron Powell Which flies completely in the face of a progressive agenda that usually champions public defenders and criminal justice reform. It is the ultimate rules for thee but not for me argument.

SPEAKER_02 16:35

Trevor Burrus That is precisely the structural critique the Post is making. Because, and here's the crux of the attack Ali Najmi himself is a criminal defense lawyer. Right. The editorial explicitly states he has, quote, plenty of questionable clients of his own in his private practice, yet his client list does not disqualify him. Of course not. He is not vetted out. In fact, he's allowed to actually run the entire committee.

SPEAKER_00 16:59

They're saying you can't retroactively use the controversial client excuse as a shield to explain away the demographic issues on the committee when the guy holding the gavel has made a career representing controversial clients himself.

SPEAKER_02 17:12

The editorial board is arguing that this vetting process isn't based on any principled ideological stand about legal ethics or client associations. Rather, they view it as a convenient, retroactive excuse deployed by City Hall to justify an exclusionary and politically motivated committee composition. They are using Najmi's dual roles defense attorney and committee chair to highlight the utter inconsistency of the mayor's defense.

SPEAKER_00 17:38

Okay, let's take a breath because we have covered a massive amount of dense, complicated ground today.

SPEAKER_02 17:43

We really have.

SPEAKER_00 17:44

We started by looking at the core contradiction, the Post alleges, Ali Najmi serving as the powerful chairman of the Judicial Nominations Board, shaping the city's courts, while simultaneously engaging in adversarial litigation against the very city he serves over the tragic Central Park carriage crash.

SPEAKER_02 18:02

The fundamental tension between private financial interest and public objective duty.

SPEAKER_00 18:07

Then we zoomed in on that vital July 30 correction regarding Liaka's law, where Najmi serves as of counsel. We discussed the critical mechanical difference between the original radioactive phrasing of a federal investigation and the procedural reality of a pending civil lawsuit alleging fraud. It's a masterclass in media literacy, honestly. And why understanding legal terminology is essential when parsing political attacks.

SPEAKER_02 18:30

Because the procedural posture of litigation, who is making the claim, and what burden of proof they carry dictates the actual weight of the allegations.

SPEAKER_00 18:39

From there, we explored the macroeconomic policy clashes. We look at how Najmeet's private practice, specifically his involvement in the strict liability mechanics of scaffolds law cases, allegedly drives up construction insurance costs.

SPEAKER_01 18:52

Right.

SPEAKER_00 18:53

This creates a scenario that actively undermines Mayor Mamdani's own affordable housing agenda, highlighting a severe tension between political loyalty and actual policy success.

SPEAKER_02 19:03

The firefighter selling flamethrowers to the city he's supposed to be protecting.

SPEAKER_00 19:07

Exactly. And finally, we unpacked the fierce debate over the committee's demographics. We looked at the accusation of intentional discrimination regarding the lack of Jewish members and the glaring hypocrisy of City Hall vetting out a retired justice for his past defense clients while a practicing defense attorney runs the entire show.

SPEAKER_02 19:26

It's a lot to process.

SPEAKER_00 19:27

It really is. Now, as a final reminder, before we wrap up, I want to reiterate that everything we discussed today are the arguments, the logical structures, and the accusations presented by the New York Post Editorial Board, alongside the defenses offered by City Hall.

SPEAKER_02 19:41

Right. Our goal for you today was simply to help you understand the architecture of these political attacks, you know, the policy tensions at play, and how municipal power actually operates behind closed doors.

SPEAKER_00 19:52

Yes, exactly.

SPEAKER_02 19:53

We hope you walk away with a much clearer understanding of the forces shaping this particular municipal debate, equipped to read between the lines of the next political editorial you encounter.

SPEAKER_00 20:03

So, what does this all mean for the future of how cities are governed? It leaves me with this final provocative thought for you to mull over on your own. If we demand that our civic advisors and committee chairs have absolutely zero private entanglements, no outside business interests, and no controversial past clients, do we inevitably end up being governed exclusively by insulated career bureaucrats who are completely disconnected from the gritty, messy, and necessary realities of the actual legal system?

SPEAKER_02 20:33

Aaron Powell It's a fascinating paradox. You want pristine objectivity, but you also need practitioners who actually understand how the gears of the city turn.

SPEAKER_00 20:43

Aaron Powell It really is the ultimate balancing act. Thank you for joining us on this deep dive. Keep questioning the narratives, keep looking at the mechanics, and we'll see you next time.