An unprecedented dispute shakes Nicolás Maduro’s defense in the federal court of New York. His official lawyer requested the exclusion of Bruce Fein due to lack of authorization from the accused, revealing tensions and potential procedural irregularities in a high-profile narcoterrorism case.
The federal criminal process against Nicolás Maduro Moros in the Southern District Court of New York is progressing in the realm of accusations related to narcoterrorism and criminal conspiracy. In its early days, the case file began to reveal a less visible but equally telling struggle: an internal dispute for control over his legal defense.
On January 8, 2026, lawyer Barry J. Pollack, who is officially listed as Maduro’s contracted defense attorney, filed a motion to exclude Bruce Fein from appearing in court, claiming that Fein had never been authorized by either the accused or his principal defense to act in the case. The motion is supported by a detailed affidavit and documented facts within the case file.
Pollack reminded the court that his representation was formally established on January 5, 2026, the date he registered as Maduro’s attorney and appeared on behalf of Maduro in both the initial hearing and the reading of charges. That appearance, recorded in the official case file, made it clear who was legally speaking for the accused at this critical procedural moment.
Despite this, a day later, on January 6, Bruce Fein filed a motion to appear pro hac vice and a notice of entry as Maduro’s defense attorney. The court granted this request on January 8, formally adding Fein to the list of lawyers on the case before it was clarified whether there was real authorization from the accused or the already registered attorney.
Pollack’s motion is clear: neither he nor anyone acting on his behalf authorized Fein to appear, and Maduro never retained him, never communicated with him, and never granted him permission to present himself as his attorney. The document notes that after Fein’s filing, attempts to contact him via phone and email to ascertain the basis of his actions went unanswered.
The decisive point came when Pollack managed to hold a direct legal call with Maduro on January 8 itself. In that conversation, the accused confirmed that he did not know Fein and had never granted him any mandate. Based on that explicit confirmation, Maduro authorized Pollack to formally request the court to remove the appearance of the lawyer who, until that moment, had been listed in the case file without the represented party’s consent.
The document highlights a crucial aspect of the U.S. judicial system: legal representation without client authorization is not a minor defect, but a serious irregularity that can compromise ethical standards, contaminate procedural actions, and lead to future nullities. Therefore, the defense requested the court to annul Fein’s appearance immediately.
An interesting element of this episode is the position of the federal government. According to the motion, the prosecution was consulted beforehand and chose not to take any position regarding the request to exclude Fein. This neutrality leaves the decision entirely in the court’s hands and prevents the conflict from being interpreted, at least formally, as a maneuver driven by the prosecution.
Along with the motion, the defense submitted a proposed order for Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein to sign, establishing that, after considering the case history and any opposition, Bruce Fein’s appearance be officially removed from the file. If approved, Fein would have no legal status within the process.
This episode, though procedural in nature, reveals an unusual scenario in a case of this magnitude: a fragmented defense, with uncoordinated entries and the necessity for the accused himself to clarify who can — and who cannot — speak on his behalf in a federal court. In high-profile political cases, such initial disorder can have strategic costs.
As the court evaluates the motion, the case against Maduro continues its course in one of the most rigorous judicial districts in the country. However, even before discussing evidence, witnesses, or substantive strategies, the defense faces a fundamental problem: clearly defining who holds the legitimate representation of the accused. In the U.S. federal system, that definition is not symbolic. It is the very foundation of due process.
