The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is investigating a conversation between the judge who oversaw former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case and a lawyer who wanted to discuss the case, according to NBC New York.

Attorney Adam Bailey, a high-profile real estate lawyer whose law license was once suspended, told the station he approached Judge Arthur Engoron to offer unsolicited advice about the case three weeks before Engoron penalized Trump $454 million.

“I saw him in the corner [at the courthouse] and I told my client, ‘I need to go.’ And I walked over and we started talking … I wanted him to know what I think and why…I really want him to get it right,” Bailey told the outlet.

Bailey, who said he is not a Trump fan, said he knew Engoron because he appeared in court before him “hundreds of times” and said he “explained to him” that the law in the case should not be used to shut down a major company.

“He had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases. We went over it,” Bailey said.

Bailey argued that he didn’t think the judge did anything wrong.

“We didn’t even mention the word Donald Trump,” Bailey said, but “obviously we weren’t talking about the Mets.”

The judge through a court spokesperson told NBC that he was “wholly uninfluenced” by Bailey.

“No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person. The decision Justice Engoron issued February 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual,” court spokesman Al Baker told the outlet.

Baker did not respond to NBC’s questions about whether Engoron engaged with Bailey or asked questions.

Judges in New York are barred from considering communications outside of the presence of the parties in a case but the rules allow an exception to “obtain the advice of a disinterested expert” — if the judge notifies the parties in the case and gives them a chance to respond.

The state commission is looking at whether the rules were violated in this case.

“The code doesn’t provide an exception for ‘well, this was a small conversation’ or ‘well, it didn’t really impact me’ or ‘well, this wasn’t something that I, the judge, found significant,” Trump attorney Chris Kise told NBC. “No. The code is very clear.”

Retired New York appellate judge Alan Scheinkman told the outlet that if Engoron had “any substantive dialogue” about the case “it should be disclosed.”

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

“The fact that this lawyer made these statements — unprompted — during a recorded TV interview should raise serious concerns,” he said, calling Bailey’s allegation “very troubling.”

Professor Bruce Green, director of Fordham Law School’s Center for Law and Ethics, told the outlet it is not against ethics rules to discuss a law in the abstract.

“Judges don’t have to live in a bubble,” Green said. “Whether a judge’s hallway conversation with a lawyer is permissible or impermissible depends on the conversation.”