By Michael Scott
Judge Abrams conveyed her withdrawal from adjudicating the SBF-FTX proceedings on December 23, stating the essence of eradicating conflict of interest. The statement cited the husband’s advisory link as Andres is a serving partner within the Davis Polk & Wardwell firm. Judge Abrams revealed that the firm offered advisory services to FTX in 2021.
Judge Excuses from the SBF-FTX Case
Judge Ronnie Abrams delivered another twist to the embattled Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) trial in a proceeding alleging crypto fraud, negligence, and deceptive trading. Judge Abrams expressed the need to execute the District Court from the case, indicating that her husband has an existing partner engagement at the law firm that advised the embattled crypto exchange in 2021.
The statement filed before the Southern District of New York (SDNY) court confirmed that Abrams’ spouse Gred Andres has worked in the firm since June 2019. Besides the advisory input offered to the crypto exchange in 2021, Abrams noted that Davis Polk & Wardwell is actively representing parties that could adversely affect FTX and SBF in separate legal proceedings.
While Judge Abrams ruled out the involvement of Andres in other representations, Abram reassured that the district court was not privy to the advisory link since the matter was confidential. Nonetheless, exercising the District Court was prudent to avoid possible conflict emerging or conceived to exist during the proceedings.
Before joining Davis Polk & Wardwell in June 2019, Andres served as an assistant attorney within the Eastern District of New York. He oversaw investigations on foreign bribery besides the prosecutions that involved criminal fraud.
Grounds for Disqualification
Judge Abrams’ decision to withdraw from the case is informed by 28 U.S. Code § 455 b(4) as Andres, her husband’s law firm, has a financial interest in the FTX being the defendant party within the proceedings. His engagement as a partner in the law firm that offered advisory guidance to FTX in 2021 has an interest that could suffer substantially relative to the proceeding’s outcome.
Judge Abram cited the 28 U.S. Code § 455 b(5) grounds for disqualifying the judge. Her revelation satisfied the criterion in b(5) since Andres, her husband’s law firm, was party to the proceedings and represented parties in proceedings that could affect the FTX case. Moreover, the law firm where the spouse is a partner was likely to become a witness to the proceeding, given past advisory links to the FTX exchange.