MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email:

Monday, May 21, 2007

Wannabe Judge Attorney Writes About Ethical Dilemmas SHE Failed to Report...CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY

Wannabe Judge Attorney Writes About Ethical Dilemmas SHE Failed to Report

It was reported in The Westchester Guardian (“Carvel Niece Fights Westchester Judicial Machine”, May 17, 2007) that Manhattan attorney Eve Markewich had “itemized in a New York Law Journal article how many different violations of professional ethics and disciplinary rules the attorneys in the Westchester Carvel proceedings inflicted on Agnes Carvel.”

Many blog readers wrote to us saying they were confused, so we looked into the story.

We wondered whether Ms. Markewich did, in fact, author an article that explained how she saw violations of attorney disciplinary rules. “Impossible,” said one lawyer we asked. “She knows that she is obligated to report the improper acts of other attorneys to the disciplinary committee. She can’t use that knowledge as material for a story without reporting it.”

Well, we looked for, and found, that New York Law Journal article, dated Monday, February 14, 2005, “Getting Grounded On Ethical Dilemmas”. The article is a part of the Carvel estate file and available to the public. The New York Law Journal article provides the following credit: “Eve Rachel Markewich is a member of the Blank Rome litigation department. Barbara MacGrady, an associate with the firm, assisted in the preparation of this article.” (Note: Eve Rachel Markewich is no longer with Blank Rome)

We took further note that The Westchester Guardian reported that attorney Markewich had recently run for Manhattan Surrogate. Sure enough, we found attorney Eve Rachel Markewich’s name on the primary ballot for Manhattan Surrogate in 2006. (Note: Ms. Markewich lost the primary election to the current Surrogate, Kristen Booth Glen)

We then poised the following to 36 New York State licensed attorneys:

You become involved in an estate litigation and are astounded that: (1) the will was drafted by an attorney who never met the decedent, or even spoke to him on the telephone; (2) the wife was never advised to seek separate counsel, and never asked to consent to joint representation; (3) the attorney supervising the execution of the documents was not an estates practitioner but was charged with explaining the documents (which were not simple) to the wife; and (4) the wills named several executors, two of whom were corporate attorneys involved in the estate planning process, although they were not the ultimate drafters of the documents- and one of those lawyers also was named as a beneficiary.

We then asked the 36 lawyers: What would you do given the provided facts?

(a) Confront the lawyers about the astounding facts, and maybe advise the court attorney or judge, but surely report the revelations to the disciplinary committee?

(b) Say nothing about the astounding facts because those responsible for the improper acts must approve the $3 million in legal fees you seek. But write an article about the lacking ethics for The New York Law Journal, and then run for Manhattan Surrogate Court Judge in the next election; or

(c) Go to Disney World.

Our findings were inconclusive and our survey abandoned because not one of the queried attorneys would stop laughing.

Attorney Markewich’s conduct is reprehensible, and obviously not funny. And her failings are, unfortunately, not a joke. The Westchester Guardian may be right, “The Estates of Thomas and Agnes Carvel are a microcosm of the political corruption that festers in Westchester Surrogate’s Court.” The facts in the 17-year-old Carvel estate case, and the actions and inaction of Ms. Markewich, point to the critical condition of certain courts in New York.

It is a fact that on Monday, February 14, 2005, the New York Law Journal published an article written by New York attorney Eve Rachel Markewich, titled “Getting Grounded On Ethical Dilemmas.” In that article, Ms. Markewich had that temerity to write about events subsequently brought to her attention in an estate proceeding that resulted in her penning, “It was astounding to me that none of the following issues had been raised in the probate proceeding.” Ms. Markewich then went on to list the grossly improper happenings and failures, which included numbers 1-4 from the above poised facts. Incredibly, wannabe judge Markewich then cites numerous attorney disciplinary rules in her “review of basic ethical precepts.”

The apparent and brazen disregard of Ms. Markewich’s own attorney ethical obligations to report the improper actions of other attorneys is only outdone by her nerve in then writing about it. And both of those acts are eclipsed by her gall in attempting to be elected Manhattan Surrogate Judge.

We are informed that Ms. Markewich is currently seeking legal fees in excess of $3 million dollars in the pending Westchester County Surrogate Court Carvel estate. (Meanwhile, Pamela Carvel, as executrix of Agnes Carvel’s estate, is still seeking reimbursement of $6,000.00 for Agnes’ 1998 funeral expenses.)

(Click on Markewich Ethics icon to the right to see NYLJ “Getting Grounded On Ethical Dilemmas.”)


Anonymous said...

Boy, this chick Markowich has BALLS !!!
As an attorney, she has first hand knowledge of wrong behavior. She keeps quiet about AND THEN WRITES AN ARTICLE ABOUT IT to give her opinion about attorney ethics ?!?!?!?!?! Then she wants to be elected as a JUDGE ?!?!??!?
Hell, let's make her president !

Anonymous said...

Wonderful. We don't need another JUDGE teaching the type of lessons Ms. Markewich would to our future lawyers. From what I read, honest lawyers and honest judges are in the minority these days. This is very unfortunate. Maybe we need to speak up more about the honest lawyers and judges, and stop coming down on ALL of them. As far as this Markewich goes, let's remember the name EVE RACHEL MARKEWICH so she NEVER gets elected to ANYTHING !!

Anonymous said...

I used to work with Eve at Blank Rome. Watch out: she's a nasty person. Eve's a good example of how low the legal profession can go in advancing selfish goals, with no regard for what's right, the feelings of others, or the law.

Anonymous said...

Who's is charge here ??

Anonymous said...

What a knucklehead !!! How'd she get a law license in the first place?!?!

Anonymous said...

Blank Rome is a class law firm. I heard they forced Eve Markewich out. She was out of control....

Anonymous said...

Dear Mrs. Markewich, So you write an article involving "getting grounded on ethics." Question: Were you high when you wrote it, or even thought about writing it. You're even a bad unethical lawyer !

Anonymous said...

Small correction to this post: Ms. Angry (aka Eve Markewich) ran for Manhattan Surrogate in 2005, not 2006.

If you want to see a good overview of what Eve’s all about, see:

It’s a great article about Eve and the “Gang That Couldn’t Campaign Straight: Eve Markewich Flop” by Jason Horowitz

They called Eve’s efforts “one of the worst political campaigns in living memory” and despite endorsements from Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins and Jerold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney. Also, she had heavy hitting Herman (Denny) Farrell, Bob Liff, George Arzt, Lonny Paris and Hank Sheinkopf.

My favorite: “Ms. Markewich was given to shouting and indecision.” This is the Eve most people know, and don’t miss !!

Anonymous said...

Oh, heaven help us. How does a WOMEN, any women, get to be like this.

Anonymous said...

Will judge-lawyer-ethics writer-blood sucker-Eve pay the dead lady's 8-year-old $6,000. funeral bill after she gets her 3 million!?! Can't imagine why some lawyers are thought of so negatively......

Anonymous said...

As an attorney, Markewich has saved my butt numerous times. She is professional, courteous and dedicated. She is my go-to lawyer. What is being written here is complete political b.s.

Anonymous said...

You'll have to excuse my confusion.

Is everyone hysterical about Eve Markewich because:

(a) she represents a client, does so zealously, and obtains fees for those services?

(b) she wrote an article several years ago about questionable attorney conduct in a publication where other attorneys might use that information to AVOID such practices?

(c) she ran for Surrogate? and/or

(d) she allegedly shouts while in the heat of a closely contested race for elected office?

Hmmmmmm. None of that makes a lot of sense. Perhaps the answer is (e) some people - most notably, those who side with Ms. Markewich's opposition in the Carvel litigation - simply don't like Ms. Markewich and/or the legal positions she is advancing on behalf of her client.

I say that because the line of argument in this blog is akin to the following:

1. Joe has an unpopular job.

2. He writes an article about how other people with the same job should avoid certain types of behavior based on his experience.

3. Joe runs for political office.

4. While running for political office, he shouts.


I'm all for open debate and freedom of expression. If you don't like Markewich personally, her job, or who she represents, you have the right to voice that opinion. She would be the first person to defend your right to say all of those things.

But to try to connect the dots so that this is worthy of discussion in a blog about legal corruption is nonsensical.

Eve Markewich has not done anything illegal. She has, so far as I can tell, never been disciplined by the New York State Bar.

She is a highly competent attorney. She contributes significant time, energy, and money to charitable causes. And her compassion for and commitment to her clients cannot be questioned.

Bloggers to this site may not want to hear it, but that's the other side of the coin. If any of you ever required legal assistance, this would be one of the first people you'd want representing you.

Anonymous said...

The previous commentor is obviously a lawyer and friend of Ms. Markowich. He or she fails to comment on the fact that a lawyer is supposed to speak up when they see another lawyer doing something improper. In her own words Markowich says that when she came into the case she observed that improper things had been done. The previous commentor would have also remained silent, i presume. And since when is adhering to attorney ethics political? The exposure of Ms. Markowich getting widespread political support to even be on the ballot ties in to how we've all neglected the fraud behind the voting/veting process for way too long.

Anonymous said...

To all who know better: zealous representation, yes. Following the code of ethics, a must. If the attorney saw something improper, which she admits to in her own writing, then she was obligated to address and/or report her beliefs/findings.

Anonymous said...

The "Joe" example is silly. It's quite simple, what she did was wrong- keeping silent about things that she knew were improper. And yes, it belongs in this discussion: WE DON'T NEED OR WANT JUDGES LIKE THIS. She's a bad example- money over ethics pollutes the system of law and order. Honest lawyers and honest judges would disagree with the author of the "Joe" example.

Anonymous said...

Since most bloggers seem to think everything that Markewich wrote about happened when she wrote the article in 2005, let's put all of this Carvel & Markewich stuff into proper perspective. 1. Tom & Agnes Carvel wrote their wills in 1988. 2.Tom died in 1990 & his will was probated in 1991, uncontested. Markewich first got involved with the Carvel Estate matters in 2000 3. All of the facts underlyng the issues raised in Markewich's 2005 ethics article were litigated in the Surrogate's Court in 4 Carvel Estate trials held in 2001 & 2002. Markewich advocated at these trials for Agnes Carvel in part based on the issues later published in the 2005 ethics article. Instead of damning Markewich, the bloggers should be praising her for litigating these issues in court and writing the article so these ethical issues could be intelligently discussed.

Anonymous said...

What nonsense. Eve Markewich is one of the most dedicated lawyers I know. If she was afraid of criticizing other lawyers for acts they purportedly did years before she was involved in the case why would she publish article about the whole thing in the first place. Logic like this will not win you any prizes. You are being duped by people opposing her in court. For once get the facts right. I knew Eve for many years at Blank Rome. She was highly regared and the person most of the associates in her department looked to for guidence and advice. This is a pure smear campaign.

Anonymous said...

So why was she forced out of B.R.? There's no "smear campaign" here, just a lawyer's OWN words, in an article SHE wrote. We all get the fact that she came into the case later on, but wasn't the matter going on for 15 years or so?!? She's probably just upset she didn't get in on the gravy train earlier !!! The bottom line is that as a lawyer she was obligated to report the wrong-doings of other lawyers...not just write about it to get a byline. Watch out dear lawyers and judge-wanna-bes, the new and improved Chief Administrative Judge is going to clean up the dirt!

Anonymous said...

Eve Markewich is one of the most thoughtful, insightful and honest people I have ever met; the complete antithesis of what laypeople perceive those in the legal profession to be about. She is sensitive and fair; generous and smart. Some of these comments sound like they're from losing opponents.

Anonymous said...

Now I see some sanity in the responses to these vicious attacks on a fine attorney. When Eve ran for Surrogate she obtained wide support because of her reputation, legal skills and integrity. That reputation remains today and many of the same elected officials who supported her before have urged her to run again in the future. Get real and do not be used by people opposing her litigation and who have been criticized by several courts-both state and federal-for their improper conduct.

Anonymous said...

OK, lovers of attorney Markewich. How do you explain Jason Horowitz's 2005 article in the New York Observer?

“The Gang That Couldn’t Campaign Straight: Eve Markewich Flop”

I don't think Mr. Horowitz was ever in litigation with Ms. Markewich.

Anonymous said...

If Eve EVER runs for anything again (including dog catcher), I'm running...FOR THE HILLS !!!!
(I used to work with I don't want to hear it !!)

Anonymous said...

This whole blog is insane!!!!!! The article summarizes issues that were litigated over several years. It's not a confession, it's a summary of what the courts found in the Carvel cases. To see it any other way is to willfully misconstrue it. So here is my question to you, Mr. or Ms. Corrupt Court: Do you just happen to have an ax to grind against Eve Markewich or are you on the other (losing) side of the Carvel ethics issues?

Anonymous said...

I work for a lawyer and just verified that law journal article. Forget what both sides are saying here, it's all mumbo jumbo. Take the NYLJ article for what it is: the author writes about a personal experience which, as an attorney, she was required to speak up about.... she did not have the option to remain quiet. Sad, but true.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Ms. Markewich is a nice person, but nice people get corrupted in a corrupt system. And our New York court system has been very, very corrupt for a long time. I enjoyed the Boss Tweed comment.

Anonymous said...

I too enjoyed the Boss Tweed comment. I'm a semi-retired attorney and I know Ms. Eve Markewich. It's a good thing that the vindictive witch didn't becomes a Surrogate Court Judge, the Court has enough problems.

Anonymous said...

you can imagine what kind of a Judge she would make after you see her act!!!

Anonymous said...

what a joke. can this woman.

Anonymous said...

why does this thing have a license to practice law?

Anonymous said...

I just read this story. yes, she has balls. and she's not too bright. take her law license away too.

Anonymous said...

Can you post a picture of this clown Markewich? And she wants to be a judge?!? She should join Brooklyn's Frank Seddio in the knucklehead department.

Anonymous said...

I think, that you are not right. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:

               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2
Add to Technorati Favorites