Is the Brooklyn court system playing favorites with a select few lawyers, or just rewarding hard work? Between 2022 and 2024, Judge Lawrence Knipel, a seasoned jurist in Kings County, handed out nearly 900 fiduciary appointments to a tight-knit group of 25 New York City attorneys, sparking serious questions about fairness and potential conflicts of interest.
Over a span of just two years, Knipel assigned 881 of his total 1,800 fiduciary roles—positions that can net attorneys' fees from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars—to this small cadre, many of whom donated a combined $25,000 to the political campaign of his wife, Lori Knipel, a prominent Brooklyn Democratic Party district leader.
Let’s rewind a bit to understand the timeline. Knipel, who has served as a judge since 1991 and took on an administrative role in Kings County in 2013, made far fewer appointments in earlier years—only 527 total between 2012 and 2021. That number skyrocketed in recent years, with 600 assignments in 2023 alone.
These fiduciary gigs aren’t small potatoes—they often involve managing assets or real estate in default, with receivers raking in percentages of collected rents. One attorney snagged over 150 of these roles in just two years, while another pocketed $55,000 from a single 2023 receivership case among 25 such appointments by Knipel that year.
Take Queens attorney Helmut Borchert, for instance, who landed 105 appointments between 2022 and 2024, with his firm, Borchert & Laspina, securing 161 total. Borchert and his partners donated $9,200 to Lori Knipel’s committee since 2010, which doesn’t exactly scream impartiality when you’re getting over 20% of a judge’s assignments alongside a few other favored names.
Then there’s Michael D. Benjamin, who received 151 appointments in the same period, including lucrative receiver roles. Benjamin and his household contributed nearly $3,000 to Lori Knipel since 2013, despite his past discharge in 1994 for misconduct, though he was readmitted in 2015. It’s hard not to raise an eyebrow at the optics here.
Even non-attorneys got in on the action, like the late Harry Horowitz, who passed in spring 2023 yet still received 25 receiver assignments that year, earning nearly $95,000 from resolved cases. Horowitz donated $900 to Lori Knipel’s campaign, which might be pocket change compared to others, but it still muddies the waters of judicial fairness.
State judicial ethics rules are crystal clear: no nepotism, no favoritism, not even the whiff of impropriety in appointments. Former Chief Judge Judith Kaye hammered this home over two decades ago, codifying in 2001 that merit alone should guide such decisions, not political ties or backroom deals.
Yet, watchdog groups and retired jurists are sounding alarms over Knipel’s pattern, calling it a stain on the judiciary’s reputation. “Judges would be wise to spread out appointments to a variety of qualified lawyers,” said Retired First Department Judge David Saxe, a sentiment that feels like common sense in a system meant to serve the public, not a select few.
Knipel, for his part, seems unfazed by the criticism. “I don’t know or care who contributed to any campaign committee,” he stated, adding that with a caseload of roughly 20,000, it’s no shock that many lawyers donate to various committees. But dismissing the overlap between donations and appointments as a mere coincidence feels like a dodge when the numbers tell such a stark story.
Let’s not pretend this is just about one judge’s choices—it’s about trust in our courts. When over half of Knipel’s 1,800 appointments go to a tiny group of 25, and many of them have financial ties to his wife’s political efforts, it erodes the idea that justice is blind.
Knipel stepped down from his administrative role late in 2023 to return to foreclosure court, and he plans to retire at the end of October 2025 after over three decades on the bench. That timing might mean the State Commission on Judicial Conduct could lose jurisdiction before wrapping any probe, though referrals to other ethics bodies remain an option.
The bigger issue isn’t just Knipel’s tenure—it’s the precedent this sets. If judicial appointments can even appear to be swayed by political contributions, it’s a slippery slope to a system where justice is up for bid, something no conservative or progressive should stomach.
Former Chief Judge Kaye’s words from her 2000 report still ring true: “Simply put, the public must have faith that the courts operate free of favoritism and partiality.” If we’re serious about draining any swamp—judicial or otherwise—then cleaning up these cozy arrangements in Brooklyn is a good place to start without pointing fingers or casting blame beyond the facts.
