The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected lawyer Bruce Fein’s motion to intervene in the trial against Nicolás Maduro currently underway in this court. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein determined that the lawyer’s request lacks legal basis.
Not having been directly hired by the accused or his official defense was key for the magistrate, who denied the motion for representation, as the lawyer’s argument, based on contacts with anonymous sources purportedly close to the president, is insufficient to validate his professional participation.
In response to a request to invalidate his participation in Nicolás Maduro Moros’s defense presented by Barry Pollack, attorney Bruce Fein claimed he acted in good faith based on requests from the accused’s close circle. He requested the court conduct a private interview with the accused to personally confirm who he wishes to lead his legal defense.
Fein’s document to the court emphasizes the importance of protecting the constitutional right to choose a trusted lawyer given the complex circumstances of the detention. He pledged to withdraw immediately if the judge determines that his presence does not reflect the voluntary will of the defendant.
The Denial Order
On January 12, 2026, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Bruce Fein’s request to represent accused Nicolás Maduro Moros. The ruling establishes that Fein’s request lacks legal foundation since he was not directly hired by the accused, his registered lawyer, Barry Pollack, nor designated by the court.
Hellerstein, overseeing the case of the United States of America v. Nicolás Maduro Moros, dismissed Fein’s argument, which was based on information received from anonymous individuals allegedly belonging to the accused’s inner circle or family.
The judge affirmed the fundamental principle that only an accused has the authority to designate their own lawyer. Consequently, the court granted Maduro’s defense motion to annul Fein’s appearance and revoked a prior order granting him pro hac vice status.
Fein admitted not being hired by Maduro or his legal team, stating that his request was based on information from unidentified sources. In a non-sworn response, he described these sources as individuals credibly situated within Maduro’s inner circle or family.
Judge Hellerstein conclusively rejected Fein’s request, deeming it legally unfounded. The court’s reasoning revolved around clear principles regarding the right to defense.
The power to appoint a defense attorney rests solely with the accused. The order explicitly states: “Unnamed individuals cannot appoint a lawyer; only an accused can do so.”
The decision highlights the impossibility of a lawyer self-appointing to represent an accused. The judge emphasized, “Fein cannot appoint himself to represent Maduro.”
Fein’s request for Maduro to appear in court was denied as it was considered unnecessary.
Dispute Between Lawyers for Maduro’s Defense
On December 9, 2026, attorney Bruce Fein filed his response in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the motion to remove his appearance and the expedited in camera motion presented by Barry J. Pollack.
Both lawyers, Barry J. Pollack and Bruce Fein, presented appearances to represent Nicolás Maduro, but the former, who initially appeared, filed a motion to eliminate Fein’s participation, stating that the defendant does not know Fein or authorized him to represent him.
Fein claims he informed the court that he acted in good faith based on information from Maduro’s “inner circle or family.”
He clarified that he does not dispute Pollack’s statements but argued that the “extraordinary, surprising, and venomous” circumstances of Maduro’s detention justify direct verification of his wishes.
Based on the accused’s right to a lawyer of their choice, established in the Sixth Amendment, Fein requested the court conduct a private (in camera) interview with the accused to definitively determine his representation preferences before deciding on the removal motion.
Conflict of Representation
This dispute centers around who has the authority to legally represent Nicolás Maduro Moros in the criminal proceedings against him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Key events leading to the motion include:
January 5, 2026: Barry J. Pollack filed a notice of appearance as the attorney hired by Nicolás Maduro and represented him in the initial appearance and reading of charges.
January 6, 2026: Bruce Fein filed a motion to appear pro hac vice and a notice of appearance, also on behalf of Maduro.
January 8, 2026: The court approved Fein’s pro hac vice motion.
January 8, 2026 (later): Pollack filed a motion to eliminate Fein’s appearance, supported by a statement asserting that Nicolás Maduro does not know Fein, did not communicate with him, and did not authorize him to appear on his behalf.
January 9, 2026: Fein submitted his response to the motion and requested an in camera interrogation.
Bruce Fein’s Position and Arguments
Bruce Fein structured his response not as a direct contradiction to the facts presented by Pollack, but as a request for the court to independently verify the will of the accused.
Fein claimed that his decision to appear was made in good faith and not frivolously, supported by:
Information received from individuals credibly positioned within Maduro’s inner circle or family.
This information indicated that Maduro expressed a desire to have attorney Fein assist in this matter.
Fein emphasized that he does not accuse Pollack of misrepresentation or professional misconduct but fully accepts his representation. His purpose is to ensure that it is the court, and not interested parties, that determines the accused’s wishes.
Fein relied on two main legal pillars:
The right to a lawyer of choice: citing the Sixth Amendment, which protects the qualified right of an accused to be represented by the “lawyer of their choice” when one has been retained.
Authority of court oversight: recognizing the broad authority of the court to manage lawyers’ appearances and ensure that representation reflects the “informed and voluntary decision” of the accused.
According to Bruce Fein, when there is uncertainty regarding authorization, the most prudent course of action is to conduct a quick judicial inquiry to confirm the accused’s wishes and avoid prolonged collateral litigation.
Fein argued that Nicolás Maduro’s unique situation justifies greater diligence from the court. He described the circumstances of the detention as “extraordinary, surprising, and venomous” and detailed factors that could have led to misunderstandings or miscommunications:
Deprivation of liberty.
Communication restrictions under custody.
Immediate immersion in a foreign criminal process.
The proceedings are conducted in a foreign language.
Bruce Fein’s Request to the Court
To resolve the uncertainty and allow the case to proceed on its merits, Fein respectfully requests that the court take the following actions:
Bruce Fein argues that an in camera interrogation is particularly appropriate to prevent public disclosure of communications related to representation that could harm the accused or violate confidentiality.
Fein explicitly stated his willingness to abide by the will of the accused once it is verified by the court.
He stated that if the court concludes that withdrawing his appearance would accurately reflect Maduro’s wishes, he would do so promptly and proceed according to applicable professional obligations governing the termination of representation.