The principal law clerk for Judge Arthur Engeron, Allison Greenfield, was the subject that dominated the Trump Organization’s civil fraud trial for a second day on Friday, all but drowning out the testimony of President Trump’s second son, Eric.

On Friday morning, Eric Trump was back for a second day, waiting to resume his testimony, when lawyers for the Trump Organization continued their complaints about Ms. Greenfield, whom they accuse of being a partisan Democrat who, seated to the judge’s right on the bench, is exerting undue influence on the proceedings. 

A Trump attorney, Chris Kise, cited a Breitbart News article that claims that Ms. Greenfield has made “excessive political donations” to Democrats and other liberal organizations, in violation of New York’s judicial ethics rules. The Breitbart report describes what it calls Ms. Greenfield’s “astounding” history of activism in New York Democratic circles, and says that a Wisconsin man named Brock Fredin had last month filed a 72-page complaint about Ms. Greenfield with the New York State Bar Association, and also emailed it to Judge Engoron. 

The article lays out data that show Ms. Greenfield has this year alone donated more than $1,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, even though New York’s judicial conduct code prohibits donating more than $500.

Yet when confronted with these allegations on Friday, Judge Engoron told Mr. Kise, the Trump attorney, that it was “absolutely untrue” that he’d received such a complaint, which he said he’d only heard about when Mr. Kise brought it up. 

Mr. Kise then argued that if Mr. Fredin’s allegations against Ms. Greenfield are true, they could be grounds for a mistrial. 

A state lawyer, Andrew Amer, reminded Mr. Kise that he could file a motion to raise his concerns. The judge agreed. 

Friday’s quarreling about Ms. Greenfield ended with Judge Engoron extending the gag order, which he had previously issued against the main defendant, Donald J. Trump, to now include his defense attorneys. 

“I hereby order that all counsel are prohibited from making any public statements, in and out of court, that refer to any confidential communications, in any form, between my staff and me,” the judge wrote in his three-page court filing. “Failure to abide by this directive shall result in serious sanctions.” 

The judge added that he had assumed a gag order of this kind would be “unnecessary” against attorneys because they are “officers of the court.” 

His extended gag order does not address the alleged ethical conduct violation by Ms. Greenfield. Instead, Judge Engoron focused on the law that explicitly allows him to communicate with his law clerk, explaining that “a judge may consult with court personnel whose function it is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities. …”      

Judge Engoron also mentioned again that he’s concerned for the safety of his courtroom staff, saying that his chambers have been “inundated with hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters and packages.”

Ms. Greenfield, until last month an obscure officer of the court, has been in the headlines since October 3, when Judge Engoron slapped Mr. Trump with a gag order after he posted on social media a picture of Ms. Greenfield and Senator Schumer together at a Democratic social event, which he captioned, without substantiation, “Schumer’s girlfriend.”

When the posting came to light, Judge Engoron immediately ordered “a very limited” gag order, stating that any “personal attacks” on his court staff were “unacceptable” and “inappropriate.” 

The post, on Mr. Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social, was indeed deleted. Yet 17 days later, on October 20, Judge Engoron learned that the photograph was still on Mr. Trump’s campaign website. This resulted in the first fine.

The next incident occurred on October 25, on the same day as Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, gave his highly anticipated testimony in court. Mr. Trump, who had been voluntarily attending the hearing in New York, told reporters in the courthouse hallway that “the person” alongside the judge is “very partisan.” 

The judge, sensing another slight to Ms. Greenfield, called Mr. Trump to the stand and asked him to explain his comment. Mr. Trump answered that he had been referring to Cohen, who was sitting on the witness stand to the left of the judge. Judge Engoron was not convinced. He felt Mr. Trump had alluded to Ms. Greenfield, who sits to his right on the bench. So he issued a second fine.

Fine or no, Mr. Trump’s team was not letting go of its fixation on Ms, Greenfield. On Thursday afternoon, Mr. Kise accused the law clerk of improper court conduct, saying he felt she was “biased” and “co-judging” the case by passing notes with the judge. Last week, another attorney on Mr. Trump’s defense brigade, Alina Habba, had also objected to Ms. Greenfield’s “eye rolls and constant whispering.” The judge, bristling at the criticism of his principal law clerk, accused Mr. Kise of being a misogynist. 

In explaining on Friday why he has now gagged not only Mr. Trump but also his legal team from commenting about Ms. Greenfield, Judge Engoron seemed sincerely worried about the safety of his staff.   

“Maybe I am being overly sensitive,” he said, ”or over cautious, but I don’t think so. I am worried about this.” He added that people had permission to speak about him. “I have no gag order about me.” 

In inveighing against Ms. Greenfield, Mr. Trump’s legal team appears to be preparing for the inevitable appeal of Judge Engoron’s rulings. 

And so certain legal questions loom large. Is Ms. Greenfield indeed in violation of New York judicial ethics rules? And, if so, could this lead to a mistrial or to an appeals court striking down Judge Engoron’s pending rulings?  

It depends, an appellate attorney told the Sun on Friday evening. Did the judge appoint the law clerk himself? And was he aware that she had made these contributions? 

The attorney tells the Sun that Ms. Greenfield’s contributions could theoretically result in a judicial conduct violation, but whether they are improper would need to be determined by further investigation.