Chief New York State Judge Jonathan Lippman is helping credit card companies sue indigent credit card debtors better?

Judge Lippman, as he often does, announced certain troubling statistics about New York State court system and then did the opposite to what was supposed to be done to resolve the situation.


On April 30, 2014, with much fanfare, Judge Lippman announced new rules in order (allegedly) to fight the vast human rights abuses in the way New Yorkers are sued for credit card debt.


Judge Lippman listed the following alarming figures in this area:

• 100,000 - consumer credit lawsuits are litigated in the State of New York per year;
• 98% - percentage of defendants without counsel;
• "robosigning" flourishes, meaning signing false affidavits in support of plaintiffs' motions;
• "sewer service" is widespread where defendants are never served, the server simply "throws the papers to be served into a sewer".

Of course, if Judge Lippman ran a business and in his business something like that would happen which would threaten his business, Judge Lippman would have taken his head out of the sand and have taken effective actions immediately.


In this case, unfortunately, Judge Lippman's "business" is unsinkable no matter how ineffective it is - our pockets are presumed to be bottomless, unless, of course, people leave New York state in masses and leave its court system without financial support.  41% of New Yorkers already want to do that according to the recent Gallup poll.


Let's ask whether Judge Lippman's court system do anything an effective manager would have done in his place.


1) Did New York court system headed by Judge Lippman punish attorneys who authorized "robosigning" and "sewage service" under the frivolous conduct rule, $10,000 for each instance of misconduct?  That could nip the issue in the bud.  If attorneys knew that the discipline was sure to come for such shenanigans, they would not have dared to proceed and no rules of Judge Lippman would have been necessary.


2) Were those attorneys disbarred?  Suspended?  Censured?  Disciplined in any way at all?  Can the public at least see the lists of attorneys involved in robosigning and sewage service, so that the public may demand their disbarment and protection of the public from them at present and in the future?


3) Were those attorney prosecuted by either county prosecutors or New York State Attorney General for fraud upon the court under Judiciary Law 487?


4) If the answer is "no", who is responsible for this non-enforcement and should those people be replaced, no matter how high their rank is?


5) Should the New York court system relax the rules of legal monopoly of court representation in view of the fact that 98% of consumer credit debtors, or 98,000 New Yorkers every year cannot afford a lawyer?  What is the point of allowing attorneys engage in robosigning and sewage service against indigent pro se parties, and not being disciplined, and the indigent defendants not being allowed to have a non-attorney representative represent them in court?  How can the court system assert with a straight face that this farce is for protection of the public?




So - did Judge Lippman, as the head of New York State court system, implement any of the above measures that could lead to an effective resolution of the crises in consumer credit litigation?


Oh, no.


Judge Lippman instead legislated in excess of his authority, and in usurpation of authority of New York State Legislature and created one more rule, that people who were already caught providing false affidavits to the court, need to provide yet another affidavit to the court, that they are actually acting on personal knowledge, and everything will be ok.


A similar rule was introduced by the same Judge Lippman in foreclosure litigation some time ago.


The results of that rule are not at all favorable for foreclosure defendants.  Now foreclosure plaintiffs can avoid the main challenge of lack of standing by stating that they submitted an affirmation on personal knowledge.  The same will happen here.  Or, let me ask a naïve question - was this rule introduced as a smoke screen that something is being done to resolve blatant human rights abuses in consumer credit litigation, while in fact the new rule is aiding the plaintiffs and not the indigent defendants?


In fact, introduction of such a new "layer" in litigation deeply affecting defendants' rights amounted to legislative policy, and Judge Lippman, under the doctrine of separation of powers, is not allowed to legislate.


So - instead of doing his own job properly, Judge Lippman usurped somebody else's and botched it.  


Yet, the problem remains unresolved.