I don't know why they didn't approve him because those proceedings are confidential, and anyone who tells you why is either lying or breaking that confidentiality, so don't believe everything you read in the infamous Post. I can say, since i asked Devin, is that he has paid, and in fact overpaid, his taxes each and every year and has filed all his tax returns.

Again I certainly can't say whether any tax issues had anything to do with the city bar assn's decision since, as I say, those meetings are strictly confidential. So the sources cited by the Post are either lying or they have violated the confidentiality of the city bar assn's meeting, which would be pretty damned unethical. I certainly hope the NY City Bar Assn takes to task whoever violated that confidentiality.

Devin HAS been found qualified by other legal associations including the Brooklyn Women's Bar Assn, LeGaL of Greater NY, and has twice been found qualified by the Democratic screening committee. Adler was not approved by LeGaL of Greater NY. So in essence both have been found qualified by some and each has been found unqualified by one association.

Contrast that with Adler's public admission at an IND meeting to something that may well be a crime (making political donations specifically to get a judgeship) and it seems to me the Post is making a mountain out of a molehill (heh!) and ignoring the real story. To me, if you want to write that each candidate was found unqualified by a legal association but approved by other legal associations, fine. But to only report on one side based on either lies or unethically obtained information and to ignore the public admission of a crime is really bad journalism. But of course it is the Post and we all know that Rupert Murdoch propaganda is not real journalism.