The New York City real estate attorney at the center of a controversy involving the judge who oversaw Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial is now looking to dial back his own involvement in the case considerably.

According to attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, he and New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron discussed the case at length during a hallway chat three weeks before the court issued a blockbuster ruling that found Trump as well as other individuals and entities liable to the tune of a combined $364 million. Inclusive of interest, Trump himself owes $454 million under the ruling.

Trump’s defense seized on the allegations. First, in the media, by raking Engoron through the rhetorical process of soot production when Bailey’s comments were first reported in May. Then, earlier this month, defense attorneys filed a motion for Engoron to recuse himself as the verdict is appealed — or allow a hearing on the allegations.

Now, Bailey is looking to throw a spanner in Trump’s works.

On June 20, in a 24-page filing, defense attorneys argued Engoron should step aside or allow the full evidentiary process to play out.

From the motion, at length:

Now, allegations have surfaced revealing this Court may have engaged in actions fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities attendant to donning the black robe and sitting in judgment. Specifically, this Court has been publicly accused of engaging in prohibited communications regarding the merits of this case, in clear violation of the Code and this Court’s solemn oath. Such conduct is “antithetical to the role of a judge.” Moreover, to learn that this Court may well have disregarded basic ethical guidelines during the course of presiding over these notorious proceedings portends irreparable damage to the rule of law. In sum, this Court appears to have proceeded not only in contravention of controlling law and the Constitution, but perhaps also contrary to the governing standards of judicial conduct.

The Trump motion notes an investigation into the Bailey discussion was opened by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct after the judge issued a statement, through a spokesperson, insisting their talk was not untoward and did not influence his decision.

“Where, as here, this Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under the circumstances, it must recuse,” Trump’s recusal motion goes on. “Indeed, there is no other means of dispelling the shadow that now looms over this Court’s impartiality.”

In turn, the 45th president’s team moved to subpoena Bailey for any documents related to the real estate expert’s chat with Engoron.

Then, Bailey filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The two sides went back and forth over the motion. On Friday, Bailey filed again.

In the motion, Bailey’s own attorney, John Desiderio, notes that Trump requested “full transparency relative to the nature and extent of this Court’s relationship with Mr. Bailey, including any pattern of communication between Mr. Bailey and this Court.”

Such an expansive request, Desiderio argues, gives the game away.

“Defendants’ admitted search for ‘any pattern’ of communication between Mr. Bailey and this Court confirms that Subpoena Demand No. 2 is the ‘fishing expedition,’ for ‘unknown documents that may or may not exist, concerning information which, by Defendants’ own statement of interest, is NOT related to the ‘Action’ or to ‘factual issues raised thereby,’ as Bailey previously suggested it is,” the latest Bailey motion goes on.

In other words, Bailey’s attorney is arguing something to the effect that Trump’s attorneys should be hoist on their own petard.

Bailey previously opposed one of the subpoena requests as “overbroad.” Trump responded that argument suggests “a large volume of communications” between Bailey and the court, or the court’s staff, that are “unrelated” to the dispute over the discussion.

“Defendants’ admission is clear confirmation that Defendants’ Subpoena seeks to probe for communications, which may or may not exist, but, which if they do exist, have no relationship to the Action or to Defendants’ motion of recusal,” Desiderio goes on. “The intended improper nature of Defendants’ demand could not be more apparent.”