A startling connection has emerged as a top adviser to Mayor Zohran Mamdani, tasked with vetting judicial nominees, is linked to a Manhattan law firm accused of massive insurance fraud.
Ali Najmi, a close ally of Mayor Mamdani, was appointed in January as chairman of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary, which screens candidates for family, civil, and interim criminal court roles. Najmi joined Liakas Law, PC as “special counsel” in October 2025, just prior to Mamdani’s election, and the firm now faces a federal lawsuit filed last week in Brooklyn alleging a fraudulent scheme targeting vulnerable people.
A Mamdani spokesperson stated Najmi’s City Hall position is unpaid and offered no further comment.
Critics are raising serious concerns over this setup, warning of ethical pitfalls and potential conflicts that could undermine public trust. When a City Hall insider holds influence over judicial picks while tied to a legally embattled firm, it’s a recipe for suspicion. This isn’t just a minor oversight—it’s a glaring issue demanding attention.
Najmi, often called Mamdani’s “brother” and a key player in his political rise, has deep ties to the Queens Democratic scene and handled Mamdani’s past Assembly campaigns, according to the New York Post. His association with Liakas Law, accused of exploiting immigrants through fake lawsuits and inflated medical claims, paints a troubling picture. Honest taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for such schemes.
The federal suit against Liakas details clients allegedly faking severe injuries, like one claiming he couldn’t dress himself, only to be photographed at a bar two months after a 2020 accident. If these allegations hold, it’s a slap in the face to anyone who values integrity in our legal system. This kind of deception can’t be ignored.
With Liakas Law holding over 50 active cases against New York City, including roughly 20 filed last year per court records, Najmi’s role in judicial selection raises eyebrows. Court observers note the potential for influence over cases tied to his firm. This isn’t mere coincidence; it’s a conflict that needs resolving.
Najmi’s “special counsel” title echoes the “of counsel” role of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who reportedly earned over $3 million in referral fees without working cases at a major asbestos firm. Silver’s history of pushing favorable policies and guiding cases to sympathetic judges is a stark warning. Are we witnessing a sequel to that sordid tale?
Tom Stebbins of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York didn’t hold back, declaring, “The last thing New Yorkers need is a Shelly Silver part 2.” His words capture the unease over how personal ties could skew judicial fairness. It’s a concern that hits home for anyone tired of insider games.
Najmi has pushed back, telling The Post, “I am not associated with the frivolous litigation attack against the firm which started long before I joined.” Yet, his visible presence in firm-related social media, high-fiving colleagues, undercuts claims of distance. Actions often tell a louder story than words.
The stakes are high—last year, New Yorkers spent $96 billion on excessive litigation, according to a tort reform group labeling the state’s courts the second-worst “Judicial Hellhole” nationwide. Stebbins calls it a “fraudemic” on streets and worksites, a burden on everyday citizens. When will the system stop rewarding deceit?
Liakas Law’s spokesperson, Hank Sheinkopf, called the lawsuit baseless, predicting it would unravel under scrutiny. But with allegations of faked injuries and systemic fraud, public skepticism is justified. Slick defenses shouldn’t overshadow the need for accountability.
This isn’t just about one firm or adviser; it’s about a system that too often seems to favor the well-connected over the average Joe. When judicial oversight intersects with private legal interests, trust in fairness takes a hit. We’ve seen this before with Silver, and the outcome wasn’t pretty.
The ball is now in Mayor Mamdani’s court to clarify how Najmi’s roles will be managed—or better, separated. Transparency isn’t optional when the judiciary’s integrity is on the line. Will City Hall prioritize ethics over appearances?
For now, New Yorkers are left questioning if their courts will serve justice or just a privileged few. The shadow of influence looms large, and ignoring it risks further damaging a system already scarred by past misdeeds. It’s time for answers, not excuses.