Some court-appointed experts are related to judges, but judiciary won’t say who or how many

The politically connected husband of a Superior Court judge has made millions of dollars as a court-appointed forensic accountant after other judges directed parties in contentious divorce cases to hire him, casting an even brighter spotlight on the New Jersey judiciary’s muddled relationship with transparency.

Perhaps more troubling, some court watchers say, is the lack of reporting and oversight involving court-appointed experts married to a judge.

Soon after the New Jersey Globe asked the judiciary’s spokesman, Peter McAleer, about the issue, judges began getting phone calls from their superiors asking them if any of their relatives were receiving court-appointed contracts or work.

But the judges were explicitly told to respond verbally and not put anything in writing, the New Jersey Globe has confirmed.  That order was given by Glenn A. Grant, who retired last week as acting director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.

“It was an odd request.  Fill out the form, but don’t email me about it.  If you have questions, call me on the phone,” a sitting judge said.  “It was clear someone was trying to avoid creating a record.”

McAleer said the Administrative Office of the Courts “reached out to assignment judges regarding the formation of a working group that would review and analyze whether additional procedures or protocols might be necessary to address the appointment of immediate family members to any paid positions by the court, including as realtors, therapists, psychologists, or positions requiring other expertise.”

He noted a court rule requiring judges to disqualify themselves “if their spouse is likely to be called a witness in the proceeding.”

Still, McAleer maintains that a reporting policy was already in place.

“The Judiciary has a form that requires judges to report when an immediate family member has employment that requires regular court appearances,” McAleer explained.  “The current form does not specifically ask about appointments or the appointment of experts, or immediate family members getting Judiciary work.”

The public can’t track court-appointed contracts since family court matters are sealed.

“Judges who have an immediate family member who regularly appears in any New Jersey State or municipal court as an attorney, expert witness, police officer, or other regular participant will file a one-time notice,” he said.  “A new notice will need to be filed if the judge’s immediate family member has a change in the level of involvement previously reported.”

That means a judge with a spouse who has court-appointed work could theoretically file a letter once and never mention it again, no matter how long their judicial service lasts.

McAleer declined to identify the judges who have filed disclosure notices, citing a court rule that exempts personnel records from public access, and would not say how many state court judges have submitted such a letter.

The story began with a tip from a whistleblower that William J. Morrison, who served as treasurer of former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman’s three statewide campaigns, was the go-to forensic accountant for judges in multiple vicinages.  His wife, Margaret M. Foti, served as Whitman’s chief counsel and later spent fourteen years as a judge, including time as the presiding judge of Bergen County’s criminal division.

Prior to her nomination to the bench by Gov. Jon Corzine in 2009, Foti had spent thirteen years as general counsel to her husband’s firm, Morrison & Company.  Since her retirement in late 2023, she has been a consultant to Withum’s forensic and valuation services team; Morrison is a partner emeritus of that team.

Morrison, the New Jersey Globe has learned, is one of many relatives of judges who profit off court-appointed work.

Some sitting judges told the New Jersey Globe that Morrison is very good at his job – he places valuations on businesses that help determine marital assets – but also acknowledged that some judges feel pressured to pick a colleague’s family when assigning work to an expert.

“Some of these experts have been doing this long before family members became judges,” Foti explained.  “Typically, court appointments come after both sides meet with the judge and request an expert.”

She pushed back on the idea that judges recommending people they know as experts is problematic.

“That gives an extra area of comfort to the parties,” said Foti, who stressed that attorneys, not judges, “typically pick the expert.”

“Experts need to be knowledgeable and fair, “she said.

Foti stated that she worked in the criminal division for many years, and during her time in the family division, she did not handle divorces.

One party in a matrimonial case told the New Jersey Globe that he felt the judge had pushed him to agree to hire Morrison, who collected a six-figure fee.  He said the judge wanted a witness “who was known to the court,” something that he interpreted as a less-than-subtle demand.

According to her LinkedIn Page, one of Foti’s specialties is “court-appointed assignments.”

But one sitting judge, stressing that he has never worked with Morrison, confirmed the practice of throwing work to a judge’s family member was common.

“A judge doesn’t need to be told that someone’s wife or husband works as an expert.  We know it,” another judge said.

One legislator called the practice “troubling.”

“I have no problem with a retired judge earning a living, but they can’t direct work to family members while on the bench,” the lawmaker said.  “When they share a house and a checking account, they benefit financially, and that’s a problem.”

It’s unclear how strictly the notification rule has been enforced.  Two sitting judges said they were unfamiliar with the form.

Last month, Appellate Court Presiding Judge Thomas Sumners sent an email to the state’s appellate division that attached a “Reporting Form for Immediate Family Member with Employment Requiring Regular Court Appearances.”  The appellate judges were given two days to fill out the form.

“Per Director Grant’s request, please complete and submit the attached form if it applies to you by March 19, 2025,” the email, obtained by the New Jersey Globe, stated.

A third sitting judge expressed considerable frustration with how the judiciary handles questions about transparency.

“Many of us read about elevating a judge who was in a relationship with a staff member to the appellate division, or pressure to attend a retirement party during the work day and being told to pay in cash, or the one about an assignment judge being appointed because he promised he’d be loyal to (Chief Justice Stuart) Rabner,” the judge said. “We have a wonderful judiciary in New Jersey, and many of us are upset that the chief and Grant and his spokesman make us look bad.  That’s unfair.”

Foti said that judges have an “obligation to disclose a conflict” and said if someone involved in a matter feels that a judge acted improperly, they have the right to file a complaint with the court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.

“I have full confidence that any complaint is thoroughly investigated,” Foti said.