NBC's Tom Winters is following this for us.

So, Tom, what are their grounds?

Right.

So they're specifically citing a series of reports done by our colleagues at NBC New

York, Melissa Russo and Jonathan Deanston.

This stems from an interview they did with Adam Bailey, who's not a party to this case.

He is an attorney in New York.

He once had his license suspended.

Basically what happened is, over the course of two interviews, Bailey said that he reached out to the judge, in this case, Judge N. Goron, asking him—or, excuse me, suggesting to him potentially how this case should proceed.

And I want to read the quote so that we can get it right.

I wanted him to know what I think and why.

I really wanted him to get it right.

In a subsequent interview, Bailey said that he never mentioned the word Donald Trump.

But when asked if it had been clear which case they were discussing, Bailey responded,

Well, obviously, we weren't talking about the Mets.

So there's a potential issue here that exists when a non-party to this case—so it's not Trump's attorneys, it's not the attorney general—when a non-party reaches out to the judge, the judge should immediately, traditionally, according to the legal experts we've talked to, stop that discussion.

But it might be prudent for the judge to notify the parties, Hey, I was walking down the hall and having lunch, and all of a sudden, Tom Winter, this reporter, approaches me and he says X, Y, Z about the case.

That's an unlikely example, but just to give folks a sense of what could have happened here.

And that's an argument that Trump's attorneys are making.

They're effectively saying the judge here should have told us that this attorney reached out to him with specific information.

And by the way, it's not just any random attorney.

This is somebody who's been cited by The New York Times, obviously was speaking with our colleague Melissa Russo about their professional opinion, because he has a lot of experience in real estate law.

And as we all know, the New York AG's case against Donald Trump really centered around his properties in real estate.

And so that's where the focus of this was.

That's where the discussion may have taken place.

We should note that at the time, our colleagues reached out to a court spokesperson who did not deny that a conversation had taken place between the judge and lawyer, but said that the interaction was insignificant.

I want to read that statement.

No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Ingoren and Mr. Bailey or any other person.

The decision Justice Ingoren issued February 16th was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual, according to Al Baker, a spokesperson for

New York's Office of Court Administration.

So to recap it all, we've got an attorney who's got experience in real estate law in an interview unsolicited to our colleague Melissa Russo, suggested he had had some sort of communication with the judge.

It's that communication and the judge's lack so far, according to Trump's attorneys, of notifying them that any sort of discussion took place where they say, look, he's got to recuse himself.

Whether that ultimately impacts this nearly half-billion-dollar fine levied against Trump,

Katie, big question mark.

I think that's way down the road.

It's still an if, not a when.

Well, he's appealing it, so there is also that course.

Tom Winter, Tom, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.