INSIDE THE INNER CIRCLE: How Judge David Fried and Justice Sherri Eisenpress Built a Judicial Empire on Cronyism, Conflicts, and Cover-Ups

• Financial Ties:  Eisenpress issued a custody order in favor of a client whose attorney was simultaneously co-hosting a campaign fundraiser for her— implicating the political activity restrictions of 22 NYCRR § 100.5(A) and the prohibition on lending the prestige of office under

II. The NYS LGBTQ+ Judges Association and the Hub of Influence

A central node of connection for the Rockland County judicial elite is the New York State LGBTQ+ Judges Association.[1] The website serves as more than just a public-facing advocacy platform; it documents a high degree of social and professional overlap between its key leaders. On the homepage, a prominent group photograph features President Judge David Fried and Corresponding Secretary Judge Sherri Eisenpress standing alongside New York State Governor Kathy Hochul during the New York City Pride Parade.

See NYS LGBTQ+ Judges Association Website.

This visual documentation of proximity to the highest level of state power is symptomatic of the “elite class” associations touted by these jurists. The association’s news records show Fried and Eisenpress appearing together frequently, including at the President’s Reception for the International Association of LGBTQ+ Judges annual conference at the Stonewall Visitor’s Center in Manhattan. While such activities are presented as advocacy, they provide a structured environment for the cultivation of “close personal and social relationships” between judges and favored members of the bar—the very behavior that led to Justice Eisenpress’s downfall.

III. The Deep Personal Ties: The Fried-Eisenpress Relationship

The relationship between Judge David Fried and Justice Sherri Eisenpress goes significantly deeper than mere professional colleagues. Their lives are intertwined through multiple institutional and personal layers. For years, they shared leadership of the LGBTQ+ Judges Association and served together on the board of directors for the Arc of Rockland, where Eisenpress served as Chair and Fried as a Member at Large.

Perhaps the most striking evidence of their personal intimacy is found in the record of Judge Fried’s own wedding. In 2020, during the height of the pandemic, Fried married his partner, Duarte, in a virtual ceremony attended by 500 guests. The ceremony was officiated by none other than Justice Sherri Eisenpress, and the keynote speaker was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The fact that one judge officiated the personal wedding of another while both presided in the same judicial district and led the same advocacy organization raises profound ethical questions regarding institutional capture. Under New York’s Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100), judges must avoid the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.[4] Specifically, § 100.4(A)(1) requires that a judge’s extra-judicial activities shall not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially, while § 100.4(A)(2) mandates that such activities shall not detract from the dignity of judicial office.[5] When judges are this personally “bonded,” the public’s confidence that they will remain independent and hold one another accountable is fundamentally undermined—a direct affront to the mandate of § 100.1 to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.[6]

Moreover, 22 NYCRR § 100.3(D)(1) imposes an affirmative duty on judges to take appropriate action when they receive information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a substantial violation of the rules. The question must therefore be asked: what did Judge Fried know about Justice Eisenpress’s relationships with attorneys appearing before her, and when did he know it?

IV. Courtroom Misconduct in Adler v. Pollak

The 2025 matter of Adler v. Pollak (035769/2025) has emerged as a landmark instance for those documenting the erosion of judicial temperament in Rockland County. In this proceeding, Judge David Fried’s actions reportedly devolved into a targeted campaign of intimidation against legal counsel.

A. Suppression of the Record and Castigation of Counsel

A fundamental tenet of the New York State Unified Court System is the preservation of an accurate trial record. In Adler v. Pollak, Judge Fried reportedly castigated attorneys who attempted to formalize their arguments for the record, treating the act of “creating a record” as a nuisance or a personal challenge to his authority. Most controversially, reports indicate that Fried targeted a lawyer for “creating a record” while simultaneously touting his personal relationships with high-level associates of the late Jeffrey Epstein. This behavior signals to minority counsel and those outside the local “inner circle” that the standard rules of advocacy do not apply in his courtroom—a violation of 22 NYCRR § 100.3(B)(4), which requires judges to be “patient, dignified, and courteous” to all lawyers appearing before them.

B. Hostility Toward Per Diem Lawyers and Coercive Sanctions

Judge Fried has also demonstrated a documented hostility toward per diem lawyers, substitute attorneys who often lack the institutional protection of senior partners in local firms. During the Adler v. Pollak proceedings, per diem representatives were reportedly subjected to intense judicial pressure and “coercive sanction threats” used as tools of courtroom management. When a judge uses the threat of financial sanctions or contempt to force an attorney to waive a right or abandon a legal argument, it constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial office and a violation of the attorney’s duty to provide zealous advocacy. Such conduct also violates 22 NYCRR § 100.3(B)(3) (requiring order and decorum, not intimidation) and § 100.3(C)(1) (requiring the judge to discharge administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice).

V. Ethical Analysis of a “Judicial Duo”

The simultaneous misconduct of Fried and Eisenpress suggests a coordinated disregard for ethical boundaries. While Eisenpress was investigated for presiding over 55 cases involving her close social circle and participating in a group text scandal involving “off-color jokes” and “sexually graphic images,” Fried was utilizing similar networks to bolster his perceived political invulnerability.

The ethical implications are multifaceted:

1. The Shadow Judiciary: The existence of a private network (including group texts and shared vacations) allows for a “shadow” system of justice where outcomes may be influenced by social proximity rather than the merits of the case—striking at the very heart of 22 NYCRR § 100.2(A)’s command that judges promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
2. Mutual Insulation: When two judges hold dominant leadership positions in local bar and advocacy organizations, they are in a position to insulate one another from local oversight—undermining the reporting obligation of 22 NYCRR § 100.3(D)(1).
3. Conflict of Interest in Officiation: Justice Eisenpress officiating Judge Fried’s wedding creates a level of personal debt and social entanglement that makes future professional impartiality between the two nearly impossible to maintain—violating both 100.4(A)(1) and § 100.2(B).[16]

While membership in affinity groups is legal and promotes diversity, the Eisenpress investigation reveals how these leadership circles can become “echo chambers” of favoritism:

• Shared Leadership: As President and Corresponding Secretary, Fried and Eisenpress were the public faces of a specific judicial “clique.”
• The Visibility Factor: When the public sees judges in high-level photographs with specific attorneys or political figures, and those same judges later rule on cases involving that “inner circle” without transparency, the appearance of impropriety under 100.2 is solidified.[17]
• The Systemic Risk: If Justice Eisenpress was found to be vacationing and gossiping with attorneys in a “closed loop,” the public naturally questions if other leaders in that same circle—including Judge Fried—are maintaining the same level of inappropriate intimacy with the practitioners appearing before them.

VI. Political Elite Integration and the “Elite Class” Narrative

Judge Fried’s leadership roles have placed him in frequent contact with the highest levels of the “elite class.” He has been pictured marching with Governor Kathy Hochul and attending exclusive events at her invitation.[19] Furthermore, his social ties to the Clintons, highlighted by Hillary Clinton’s attendance at his wedding, reinforce a narrative of political connectedness that can intimidate litigants who feel they are on the “wrong side” of the local establishment.

The allegation that Fried “touts” his relationship to Epstein associates is particularly corrosive. Regardless of the truth of the underlying connection, a judge who permits the impression that they are in a “special position” to influence or be protected by such figures violates the core of 22 NYCRR § 100.2(C), which prohibits judges from lending the prestige of their office to advance private interests. It further offends § 100.2(A)’s requirement that judges act at all times in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity.

VII. Additional Code of Judicial Conduct Violations

Beyond the provisions already discussed, the conduct of Judge Fried and Justice Eisenpress implicates several additional provisions of 22 NYCRR Part 100 that warrant examination:

• Section 100.3(B)(1): A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. Judge Fried’s reported use of coercive sanction threats without following required procedures suggests a failure to faithfully apply the law governing attorney sanctions.
• Section 100.3(C)(2): A judge shall require staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge. Justice Eisenpress’s failure to insulate her principal law clerk from cases involving the clerk’s spouse’s firm is a direct violation of this provision.
• Section 100.3(E)(1)(a)(i): A judge shall disqualify himself or herself where the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The documented personal relationships between both Fried and Eisenpress and attorneys appearing before them created ongoing disqualification obligations that were systematically ignored.
• Section 100.4(C)(3)(b)(iv): A judge shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation. Justice Eisenpress’s entanglement of campaign fundraising with case outcomes implicates this provision directly.

 Conclusion

The Ninth Judicial District stands at a crossroads. The resignation of Justice Sherri L. Eisenpress removed a major source of institutional bias, but the underlying culture of cronyism appears to persist through Judge David Fried. The proceedings in Adler v. Pollak and the visual evidence from the NYS LGBTQ+ Judges Association’s own website document a judiciary that is increasingly viewed as a closed social club for the political and social elite. Restoring public trust will require more than just the removal of individual bad actors; it will require a complete dismantling of the “inner circles” that allow personal relationships to override the impartial application of the law.