In a 2010 legal dispute over the meaning of full disclosure, a real property investment firm found itself on the receiving end of a complaint regarding the history of one of its partners, Felix Slater. The accusation–levied by New York attorney Frederick Oberlander–contended that the company, involved in capital projects like the Trump SoHo hotel, kept the native Russian’s criminal record under wraps. The ensuing months and years saw Oberlander in and out of court regarding his original petition. Upon careful scrutiny of the actions and articles posted on this website, however, Oberlander’s representations appear less credible and more disingenuous.


Court documents reveal, for one thing, that Oberlander’s actions as a lawyer in this matter may have crossed the line in terms of professional conduct. Most telling was his unauthorized employment of confidential information from Sater’s criminal records–records quarantined from use by a federal judge in recognition of Sater’s willing and far-reaching cooperation with U.S. attorneys. When apprised of Oberlander’s unlawful release of the sealed material, the district court, backed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, enjoined the lawyer from further leaking. This appellate court sits in New York City and hears cases from parts of New York State, Connecticut and Vermont.

Five years after the initial complaint by Oberlander, the district court hearing the case ordered penalties against him while simultaneously voiding most of Oberlander’s accusations. When handing down the sanctions, the court reminded the lawyer that he had–more than once–disobeyed judicial instructions to answer whether or not the original charges were based on evidence obtained from sealed criminal files. Given his stubborn refusal to provide answers to the court, Oberlander now finds himself under investigation for the manner in which he conducted himself relative to his petition against the real estate firm regarding Sater.

Beyond these inquiries, his actions were brought to the attention of a federal practice grievance tribunal for the purpose of considering license suspension or disbarment. In a lengthy and comprehensive edict, the grievance panel determined that Oberlander did indeed act against the law; prejudiced the strict administration of justice; and committed numerous infractions against accepted legal standards. By continuously ignoring judicial instruction, making sealed information public and threatening to do so to coerce a settlement, Oberlander earned for himself a one-year suspension of his license to practice law.

Yet this sanction does not end Oberlander’s troubles. Represented by his friend and colleague, Richard Lerner, Oberlander became radioactive as his activities became more widely known in the legal community. In fact, Lerner’s firm–Wilson Elsner–dismissed the attorney because Lerner insisted on retaining Oberlander as a client. Moreover, the firm removed its name from all documents related to Oberlander’s defense. That this highly esteemed firm took such pains to put distance between itself and Frederick Oberlander makes a bold statement about the latter’s growing infamy.

To lift Oberlander’s suspension would, given his less than sterling character, free him up to resume his shady and unscrupulous tactics. Courts cannot afford this activity again.


Court documents reveal, for one thing, that Oberlander’s actions as a lawyer in this matter may have crossed the line in terms of professional conduct. Most telling was his unauthorized employment of confidential information from Sater’s criminal records–records quarantined from use by a federal judge in recognition of Sater’s willing and far-reaching cooperation with U.S. attorneys. When apprised of Oberlander’s unlawful release of the sealed material, the district court, backed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, enjoined the lawyer from further leaking. This appellate court sits in New York City and hears cases from parts of New York State, Connecticut and Vermont.



Five years after the initial complaint by Oberlander, the district court hearing the case ordered penalties against him while simultaneously voiding most of Oberlander’s accusations. When handing down the sanctions, the court reminded the lawyer that he had–more than once–disobeyed judicial instructions to answer whether or not the original charges were based on evidence obtained from sealed criminal files. Given his stubborn refusal to provide answers to the court, Oberlander now finds himself under investigation for the manner in which he conducted himself relative to his petition against the real estate firm regarding Sater.

Beyond these inquiries, his actions were brought to the attention of a federal practice grievance tribunal for the purpose of considering license suspension or disbarment. In a lengthy and comprehensive edict, the grievance panel determined that Oberlander did indeed act against the law; prejudiced the strict administration of justice; and committed numerous infractions against accepted legal standards. By continuously ignoring judicial instruction, making sealed information public and threatening to do so to coerce a settlement, Oberlander earned for himself a one-year suspension of his license to practice law.

Yet this sanction does not end Oberlander’s troubles. Represented by his friend and colleague, Richard Lerner, Oberlander became radioactive as his activities became more widely known in the legal community. In fact, Lerner’s firm–Wilson Elsner–dismissed the attorney because Lerner insisted on retaining Oberlander as a client. Moreover, the firm removed its name from all documents related to Oberlander’s defense. That this highly esteemed firm took such pains to put distance between itself and Frederick Oberlander makes a bold statement about the latter’s growing infamy.

To lift Oberlander’s suspension would, given his less than sterling character, free him up to resume his shady and unscrupulous tactics. Courts cannot afford this activity again.