The probe by special inspector general Sherrill Spatz found a "wide range of problems" with the system of court appointments like guardianships and receiverships - where lawyers are trusted with protecting widows, orphans and the elderly, according to her report released yesterday.

The report confirms a series of Post stories over the last four years, which found a small pool of politically connected lawyers receive the lion's share of the lucrative appointments.

"I'm surprised by the extent of some of the findings," Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman said.

"At the same time, [I'm] pleased that the spotlight is on it. This is all about reform and changing the system, and not having business as usual."

The report doesn't identify the names of judges, lawyers or cases - except for the Cypress Hills Cemetery receivership, which led to the investigation.

Spatz was appointed after lawyers Arnold Ludwig and Thomas Garry, who have ties to the Brooklyn Democratic committee, complained in a December 1999 letter to party leaders - disclosed by The Post - that they were getting frozen out of legal work on the Cypress Hills case.

Office of Court Administration spokesman David Bookstaver said names were kept out to protect the confidentiality of disciplinary committee proceedings.

Lippman refused to say how many judges have been referred to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which can impose penalties ranging from a slap on the wrist to removal from the bench.

But sources said it's about a dozen judges - and that about 12 lawyers have been referred to the disciplinary committee.

A blue-ribbon panel appointed by state Chief Judge Judith Kaye and charged with recommending sweeping reforms will make its suggestions tomorrow.

The findings of Spatz's probe, which involved reviewing hundreds of cases in the five boroughs, as well as Nassau, Westchester and three upstate counties, include:

* The law firm of Garry & Ludwig getting a huge chunk of legal work on Brooklyn receivership cases - reeling in $700,000 over a five-year period.

The report said that never should have happened, because Garry and his law partner brother are sons of a sitting judge and should have been ineligible for the work.

The firm would often find out when a new receiver was named to a case because they handled legal filings for a Brooklyn mortgage lending bank and would learn when the bank applied for a receiver.

* Guardianship appointments routinely being given to a small group of lawyers with political ties or personal relationships with judges.

* Judges flouting the $5,000 rule - where lawyers can be paid more than that amount on only one appointment in a 12-month period.

* Receivers routinely picking their own "secondary" appointees - lawyers who act as counsel, or property managers. Rules say judges are charged with that task.

CASE 1

A Manhattan Supreme Court judge appointed two guardians to handle the finances and personal needs of a retired college professor who'd suffered a stroke and needed round-the-clock help. One of the guardians resigned and was replaced by a financial manager. A few months later, the victim started to recover and wanted to start managing his own money, but his guardians wouldn't give him any information about his finances. A court evaluator decided the man was well enough to manage his own finances. The guardians still billed the case for another 70 hours. The guardians were paid $480,000 - out of the man's pocket.

CASE 2

An "incapacitated person" who had limited assets was given a court-appointed guardian. The guardian who was chosen by a judge was given the work despite having no prior guardianship experience. The guardian was given the job despite not being on a court-approved list. After about a year and a half, the guardian billed the victim's estate $12,000 for various services provided. Those services included 12 hours spent shopping for clothes, 12 hours dealing with their finances. Another 45 hours were spent going to doctor's appointments.

CASE 3

Shopping trips were also expensive for an incapacitated woman in Queens, whose guardian billed for more than $1,000 for one excursion. In the same case, the guardian and an employee charged the woman's estate $850 for toasting her birthday with her, when they brought flowers and cake to her at her nursing home. Another shopping trip, which included shopping "for Thanksgiving pies and ice cream," cost $375 in billable hours. Even short visits and walks near the nursing home were pricey - a stroll with the guardian and the guardian's employee, where the trio got some ice cream, was a hefty $1,275.

CASE 4

A Brooklyn receivership case - which usually involves a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, where the receiver collects rents - was ended without the receiver gathering any rent money. The receiver asked the court to approve a $725 bill for work done on the case, and the judge agreed. Part of the receiver's bill included "time spent determining whether or not to accept the appointment" and "reading the statutes governing receiverships," according to Spatz's report. Another chunk of time was spent talking to a political party official about the name of the lawyer for the defendant in the case.

Sent to J.A.I.L. by Bob Striffler at [email protected]