Client cans att’y who ripped judge

A lawyer who called out a Manhattan Supreme Court judge for not disclosing political donations from a courtroom rival was sacked by his client days after the Daily News revealed the convoluted tale.

Matthew Press, who was representing Bradford Billet in a $130 million lawsuit, got the ax for saying that Judge Michael Katz should have recused himself over $10,000 in campaign cash he received from two opposing attorneys.

“I believe Judge Katz to be honorable and ethical. Mr. Press’ statement did not intend to call into question Judge Katz’s integrity, but I have discharged him, so not to prejudice any further proceeding,” Billet said.

Billet suggested that Press should have focused his ire on his adversaries — Marc Kasowitz and Daniel Benson — the lawyers who made the donations.

Press went after Katz because the donations weren’t revealed during the court case against Billet’s ex-wife and her family.

“I feel that this should have been disclosed to my client at the inception of our lawsuit,” Press told The News. “If the judge did not voluntarily recuse, we could have explored a possible motion to seek his recusal.”

Katz dismissed the case in October. The decision is being appealed.

The issue of possible impropriety should have been squarely directed at Kasowitz and Benson because, according to Billet, they should have disclosed the donations to Judge Katz.

State Office of Court Administration spokesman Lucian Chalfen said the jurist did nothing wrong because he had an “independent person” handle the contributions. Chalfen said that while such contributions are a matter of public record, “ethically” Katz should not view the data.

According to rules listed on the state Unified Court System website, it does not appear the contributions — $5,000 apiece to Katz’s 2011 judicial run — fall within the “window period” in which recusal would be required.

Benson did not return messages, but he previously told The News, “In the very unlikely event Justice Katz even knew about (or, if he knew, remembered) those contributions — and, frankly, we didn’t remember them until you just reminded us — neither he nor we were under any legal or ethical obligation whatsoever to disclose them to Mr. Press.”