Randy Mastro prepares his argument to City Council

New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ pick for the corporation counsel is preparing to face what will likely be a barrage of tough questioning from City Council members at his first hearing on Tuesday.

Randy Mastro, a former federal prosecutor and deputy mayor under Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was officially nominated to lead the city Law Department at the end of July, months after it was first reported that Adams was eyeing him to replace Sylvia Hinds-Radix.

Mastro’s resume is dotted with controversial clients and cases – he has represented oil giant Chevron and the office of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie during the Bridgegate investigation – that elicited backlash among council members long before he was formally nominated. The city’s corporation counsel is one of just a few appointed positions that is subject to approval by the City Council.

In their campaign to get City Council members to hear his case, Mastro and City Hall have attempted to shift focus to other experiences – like taking on the Trump administration’s treatment of Black Lives Matter protesters, and serving as chair of good-government group Citizens Union. Even while working for Giuliani – who Mastro says he hasn’t spoken to in years – Mastro touted taking on organized crime and pushing legislation protecting the rights of same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

Although Mastro celebrated his winning record, winning over the City Council will be an uphill battle. In an interview with City & State ahead of his hearing before the council’s rules committee on Tuesday, Mastro previewed his case. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Why do you want this job? Why go through the political battle?

Well, I must really want to do this job, because I’m putting in the work. For me, public service is the highest calling. I spent over a decade of my career in public service as a deputy mayor, federal prosecutor and other public sector jobs. I was a consumer of the Law Department. I know how good it is and how great it can be. My vision for the job is, of course, to defend cases and the public fisc. But a particular priority of mine will be to move more of that office’s resources into affirmative litigation, proactive cases to advance civil rights, constitutional rights, social justice, workers’ rights, tenants’ rights, consumer protection, environmental protection and public safety. There’s so much that we can do through the power of the law to protect public safety – go after guns and drugs and gangs and organized crime and illegal smoke shops. To use the power of the law and the resources of that office to achieve those things, it could really be transformative for our city, and that excites me.

In individual meetings that you’ve had with council members, do you feel that you’ve won any of them over?

I will leave it to individual council members to speak for themselves. Let me just say that a number have come forward publicly to support my nomination. I hope that many more will. Tomorrow is an important day for me to present my qualifications – which no one seems to question – but more importantly, my vision for that office. And I look forward to answering any questions council members may have. I have a long record in public service and in private practice. I’ve done hundreds of cases over the course of my career, made thousands of decisions, so I’m happy to answer any questions any council members have about any of those cases or decisions. But I think when one looks at the totality of my record, it’s a lifetime of commitment to the highest values of the legal profession, to pro bono and community service.

Do you believe that City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams is keeping an open mind about your nomination?

Again, I’m not going to comment on individual council members; they should speak for themselves. She’s acknowledged that we met, and I was honored to meet with her. I have tremendous respect for the speaker, and appreciate this opportunity to be heard at this hearing. So I’m hopeful that the hearing process will shine a light on the entirety of my career and how much of it has been dedicated to public interest and to doing justice, which is what this should all be about. It’s about acting in the best interest of the city. And I’m prepared to come back and do that again.

There are a number of high-profile clients and cases that you’ve taken on that have received attention, including representing former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the Bridgegate investigation, representing opponents of the temporary homeless shelter at the Lucerne Hotel, Chevron’s pollution case and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy’s lawsuit to block congestion pricing. What drew you to taking on some of these cases?

I have represented many clients in private practice and it’s what lawyers in private practice do – they represent their firm’s clients zealously and ethically, and they get them the best possible results. The fact that I have been successful in that regard should be viewed positively. I’ve had success in private practice – now I’m going to have success for you, the city of New York, including the City Council. So I think that that speaks well of my abilities as a lawyer. It is the case that you take your clients’ problems as you find them. Your clients’ problems, positions aren’t necessarily your personal positions, but you responsibly, zealously and ethically represent them, and you present principled positions in court. Having said that, you want to break down the four cases you asked about, I’ll be happy to break them down. I represented the office of the governor of New Jersey, not any individual. The conclusions that we reached and the representation we provided were the same conclusions that every subsequent investigation – the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, the Bergen County prosecutor’s office – reached. The Lucerne – I didn’t sue the city in the Lucerne case, I represented a community group that wanted to provide better shelter than doubled up in a single room occupancy hotel on the Upper West Side, a place where the men could get all the social and medical services they needed, which they were not getting at the Lucerne. And the de Blasio administration agreed with me that that was the case and wanted to move the men to a better facility downtown where they could get their social and medical services on site. … You asked about Chevron. I did not represent Chevron in the environmental case in Ecuador. I represented Chevron in exposing a litigation fraud by a New York attorney that The Wall Street Journal called the litigation fraud of the century. And I think it’s in the highest traditions of the legal profession to protect the integrity of the judicial system and the justice system, and that’s what I did in that case. … Finally, you asked about congestion pricing – the governor of New Jersey, Phil Murphy, is standing up for the rights of people in New Jersey. That lawsuit is an environmental lawsuit. It’s not a lawsuit that is against congestion pricing in principle. It’s about the failure of the Federal Highway Administration and the MTA to have done a proper environmental review that protected environmental justice communities in New Jersey against the significant adverse impacts of New York’s unprecedented, first of its kind in the country, congestion pricing scheme.

You mentioned in private practice you don’t always agree with a client’s positions or problems. Are there instances in your career in private practice where you’ve declined to take on a client because of disagreement in those areas?

Yes. I would not represent somebody in the Mafia. I would not represent somebody who’s a drug dealer. I have turned down clients who I thought didn’t have a defensible position, and I’ve turned down the Trump family.

Turned down the Trump family in what case?

I’m not going to talk about (that), but I have declined to represent Donald Trump or his family.

As corporation counsel, would you back giving city legal representation to mayoral aide Tim Pearson in the sexual harassment suits against him?

I’m aware of a number of issues that will be a top priority on my desk if I’m fortunate enough to have the opportunity to serve in this position, but it wouldn’t be responsible of me to be opining on issues that I haven’t studied, that I haven’t reviewed the pros and the cons and heard from all sides on, until I’m actually in the position. But I understand that that is one such issue, and I understand that there are other cases going on right now that would require immediate focus, and they would have my immediate focus.

You’ve said that you’ll be representing the City Council too when their priorities are in court. The council’s priorities can sometimes run counter to City Hall’s, including in the recent case of the City Council suing the city over its failure to fully implement an expansion of city rental vouchers. How would you approach striking that balance – in that specific case and in general?

I think that the corporation counsel should play a more proactive role in trying to bring the two sides of the whole together to avoid litigation breakdown and see if common ground can be found. And playing a more proactive role in that regard, hopefully, can avoid litigation. When I was deputy mayor in charge of intergovernmental relations, I can only think of one time that a conflict between the council and the administration developed into litigation. So I would hope the corporation counsel playing a more proactive role could help mediate and find common ground through constructive dialogue. That’s the starting point. But ultimately, corporation counsel has to decide who has the correct legal position, consistent with the law and in the best interest of the city. And corporation counsel should make those tough calls. I think I’ve proven throughout my career I’m prepared to make those tough calls.

There was a ruling for the Adams administration in that housing voucher case I mentioned, but the City Council has mentioned the possibility of an appeal. Have you evaluated the arguments in that case? Do you have a sense of where there is a stronger argument?

I’m aware of the case. I’m aware of the dispute. I have not studied the issues. And studying the issues isn’t just reading an opinion – it’s hearing from both sides, it’s fully vetting the issues and considering them in a deliberative way. And as I said before, that would be a priority of mine, that case and some others, to do that deep dive, to steep myself in the case and give advice based on the conclusions reached about who’s right on the law, consistent with the law, and in the best interest of the city.

You donated to Mayor Adams’ campaign in October. Do you believe that you can fairly represent the city government as a whole – including the comptroller who is running against the mayor – while supporting the mayor’s reelection bid?

Whether I have donated to someone’s campaign or not doesn’t affect my judgment or independence at all. As a lawyer, I’ve represented Republicans, I’ve represented mostly Democrats. I’m a nonpartisan lawyer, so it’s not about who has battles with whom. It’s about doing the job in the best interest of the city and representing the city as a whole. So no matter what anyone has said about me in the past, or any issues, that’s beside the point. I am a lawyer who looks objectively at legal issues, tries to help people find common ground, increase communication, but at the end of the day will make the call as to who’s right on the law, consistent with the law, and what’s in the best interest of the city.