Empty, False Campaign Promises of Reform

Family Court Judge Millard Midonick took office yesterday as surrogate of New York County with a promise to replace “patronage” with “merit” in handling Manhattan’s vast estate business and to urge changes in state laws for the protection of orphans and widows. –New York Times Jan 4, 1972

The Democratic nomination race for Manhattan Surrogate where we have previously expressed a preference for Family Court Judge Millard Midonick a candidate firmly committed to reform of this patronage laden court –NY Times, Sept 9, 1971

Surrogate Midonick now has a mandate to elevate the stature of the court
By ending the system of politically chosen guardians for estates, costs of administration can be reduced –New York Times Nov. 5, 1971

Why not the Best for Surrogate Court?

“Of all the New York courts that suffer from politics and public misunderstanding, the most tormented is surely the Manhattan Surrogate’s Court. It handles more money than any other – More than a billion dollars in estates a year. That makes it a traditional source of lawyers’ patronage – and rumors of favoritism. Reformers rail at costly probate delays and their election-year vows to clean up the place do nothing for its image. . .

And Renee Roth, a law assistant to the Brooklyn Surrogate for more than a decade, has vast experience and an outstanding reputation for knowledge and integrity. . .We judge Renee Roth best equipped to give the Surrogate’s office much-needed lift in public esteem. Her dignity, serious purpose, knowledge of the law practice and instinctive probity would be a credit to the court.” –NY Times, Sept 17,
Surrogate Court Primaries, published: September 6, 1996
Next Tuesday's Democratic primary elections for the obscure but powerful post of Surrogate's Court judge in Manhattan and Brooklyn have sparked intense competition and bitter debates over personality and patronage. Voters need to decide which of the candidates have the best mix of integrity, expertise, judicial temperament and administrative skills for a job that entails overseeing wills, estates and adoptions and dispensing millions of dollars in fees to lawyers acting as executors, guardians and estate trustees.
In a fierce battle in Manhattan, the incumbent Surrogate Renee Roth faces a tough re-election challenge from Karen Burstein, a former State Senator and Family Court judge who ran unsuccessfully for State Attorney General two years ago.
We supported Ms. Burstein for Attorney General and respect her ability to spotlight issues and advocate constructive reform within the political arena. But Ms. Burstein, who quit the Family Court because she found being a judge too ''passive,'' is miscast for the surrogate's job, which calls for tempered judicial and administrative skills to wrestle behind the scenes with arcane issues of trust and estates and tax law.
Judge Roth, during 14 years in the Surrogate's job, has proved fair and able. She has brought a refreshing measure of expertise and integrity to bear on a court that was mired in patronage and accusations of political favoritism when she ran promising reforms in 1982. Her most notable failing has been insufficient aggressiveness in overhauling the office, which oversees the estates of people who die without wills or known heirs. But over all she has done an admirable job and boosted the court's credibility. She takes justifiable pride in setting a high standard of competence for fiduciary appointments and spreading the patronage to include women and minorities.
Now Judge Roth will have to set even higher goals for her second term if she is to avoid the taint of suspicion. A relatively small coterie of qualified lawyers still receives a disproportionate share of the cases and fees distributed by the court, and many of them have shown up as big contributors to her campaign. By contrast, Ms. Burstein, to her credit, is not accepting contributions from lawyers who practice in Surrogate's Court, and has limited individual donations to $500.
On the basis of her solid overall performance, Judge Roth earns our endorsement. But it comes with a challenge to rethink the system of fiduciary appointments to minimize any appearance that big contributors to her campaign are being rewarded. - NY Times, 6, 1996

WHY NOT Reason 1

AG and State Controllers Report on the Surrogate Court
Delays, lax record-keeping and inflated legal fees
In 1987, Comptroller Edward V. Regan and Attorney General Robert Abrams -- determined that record-keeping was in disarray, property was warehoused chaotically and outside lawyers were awarded windfall fees for minimal legal work. The report also said that there were serious delays in completing cases and that money from estates was deposited improperly into accounts used to pay for some of the public administrator's office expenses. – NY Times September, 7 1996.

WHY NOT Reason 2

Fake bank accounts of the dead similar to the city council fake non profits exposed by a former employees lawsuit

“In the interview Ms. Griffin said that contrary to Mr. Connolly's allegations of fraudulent endorsements, "I didn't sign any checks." But Mr. Beckerman -- who voiced surprise during his court examination when he was shown a copy of a $60,000 check payable to his "estate" -- said that the endorsement "looks like" his name in Ms. Griffin's handwriting. Documents cited by Mr. Connolly showed that some of the more than $200,000 withheld from him in accounts in his name was actually paid to others, including a freelance lawyer he said had already been paid by his firm. In all, he testified, 10 checks totaling more than $35,000 were drawn on his account, without his knowledge, and paid to others. "Each of these checks contains a handwritten forgery of my signature," he said in a sworn statement.” –NY Times, July 25, 1992

WHY NOT Reason 3

New York Inquiry is Said to Tape Court Aides Stealing Valuables From the Dead
The investigation was conducted by State Attorney General Robert Abrams, and the New York City Department of Investigation.

“New York State and city investigators have videotaped court representative in the act of taking valuables from apartments of people they thought were dead, according to people familiar with the unusual “sting.” The investigation was part of a city-wide inquiry into the offices of Public Administrators, who handle the estates of people who die without wills or without a clear executor. . . Surrogate Roth did not return several calls to her office yesterday. -NY Times, January 30, 1988

“The problems of patronage aren’t nearly as severe in Manhattan’s Surrogate Court as it is in its Brooklyn counterpart, or, for that matter, in Queens. But even in Manhattan, more can be done to avoid the impression that well-connected lawyers have an unfair edge in the competition for fees for acting as executors, guardians and estate administrators. . . Times endorse Kristin Booth Glen.” –NY Times, Sept 4, 2005

Brooklyn Surrogate No Trust

And then there's Brooklyn, where ex-Surrogate Michael Feinberg was removed from office in 2005 by the Committee on Judicial Conduct for improperly allowing one of his pals to take excessively high fees from estates of the dead.

“Justice Feinberg has promised reforms ranging from a panel to screen appointment and recommend changes in how the place is run; down to keeping the place open at lunchtime as a convenience to the public. With some wariness we endorse Justice Feinberg on the basis of his good record, and trust he will stay true to his reform pledges.” – NY Times, September 6, 1996

Update

The most recent spate of Surrogate scandals rocked the Brooklyn Surrogate Court. In 1995, then-Surrogate Bernard M. Bloom was censured for giving incorrect testimony during a court-appointed investigation of his former chief law assistant. Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg replaced him, and 10 years later, Feinberg was removed when it was discovered that he passed $8.5 million in fees to an attorney without filing the necessary paperwork. The Surrogate election game has remained unchanged as well. . . A partner at Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, he recalled an incident from former Brooklyn Surrogate Bernard Bloom’s tenure. Bloom had served as a Brooklyn District Leader for the Democratic Party before taking his office. “When he was asked by a reporter why he appointed his friends, his response was, ‘Who do you want me to appoint, my enemies?’ ” - Judicial Reports, August 27, 2008

Jimmy Breslin on the Brooklyn Surrogate Court
It was not Eduardo Daniel Gutierrez to die in a lake of concrete. The Brooklyn Surrogate's lawyer had to take his cut before his family recieved any of his wrongfull death settlement

http://www.jimmybreslin.blogspot.com/

NYC Comptroller Audit

http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/PDF_FILES/ME05_055A.pdf

Bronx Surrogate

“Last month, Daily News investigative reporter Nancy Katz uncovered a mess in the Bronx, where Surrogate Lee Holzman allowed politically connected lawyers to run up more than $2 million in fees while 37 heirs waited - some for more than a decade - and collected nothing. To make matters worse, some of the Bronx estate money was improperly placed in risky investments that tanked. Taxpayers may end up covering the $20 million loss.” –August 14, 2008