1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Vacation, mistaken filing led to order to…

Trials & Litigation

Vacation, mistaken filing led to order to show cause, lawyers for MyPillow CEO say

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 2:29 pm CDT

Human error led lawyers representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to file a draft document with incorrect case citations instead of the final version, according to a response to a federal judge’s order to show cause.

The lawyers didn’t realize that they had filed the wrong document, an early draft without corrections, until questioning 55 days later by the judge, according to their April 25 response.

Law360 has the story.

U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang of the District of Colorado had ordered the lawyers on April 23 to show cause why they shouldn’t be referred for discipline. Wang said she identified “nearly 30 defective citations” of cases, including citations to cases that don’t exist, in the lawyers’ Feb. 10 brief.

Lawyer Christopher I. Kachouroff said in a declaration his co-counsel filed the draft document instead of the final version that they “had carefully cite-checked and edited.” At the time, Kachouroff was on a one-week vacation to Mexico, where there were “limitations on internet service.”

But what happened wasn’t clear, Kachouroff said, when he was questioned in court by Wang. Kachouroff was “taken by complete surprise” because he was unaware of the mistake, he said in the declaration.

“In the face of the court’s detailed questioning, I was utterly flustered and embarrassed, and due to my ignorance of what was going on, found myself at a loss for words,” Kachouroff said.

Kachouroff said he routinely uses artificial intelligence to analyze the structure and the logic of legal arguments. He does not, however, rely on AI to do legal research or find cases.

“Regardless of whether I use AI in a particular pleading,” he wrote, “I always conduct verification of citations before filing.”

Kachouroff and his co-counsel, Jennifer T. DeMaster, are seeking leave to replace the draft document with the correct one.

Lindell is being sued for defamation by Eric Coomer, a former executive with Dominion Voting Systems. He alleges that Lindell and his related companies are “among the most prolific vectors of baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election.”

Lindell allegedly amplified false allegations that Coomer may have been involved in a rigged election and a criminal conspiracy, leading to “credible death threats” against him and banishment from the elections industry, Coomer’s second amended complaint alleges.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former George Mason University law prof says…

Verdicts & Settlements

Former George Mason University law prof says he’s ‘fully vindicated’ after ‘relatively modest’ defamation suit settlement

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 2:59 pm CDT

A former professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School has reached a settlement in his defamation lawsuit against two former students who alleged that he abused his power to initiate sexual relationships with them when they were law students.

Professor Joshua D. Wright settled with Elyse Dorsey and dropped his claim against Freshfields counsel Angela Landry, report Law.com, Law360 and Reuters.

His suit, filed in Fairfax County, Virginia, circuit court, had sought $108 million in damages.

The articles identify Dorsey as a Kirkland & Ellis partner, but the law firm’s website page for her appears to have been removed.

Dorsey’s settlement “provides Wright with a relatively modest amount of compensation and allows Dorsey to continue speaking out,” Law.com reports. Wright filed a motion to end the litigation last week.

Wright had maintained that the relationships were consensual, and the two women were “scorned former lovers.” In a statement released to Law360, he said he is “relieved to have been fully vindicated. The evidence has made it undeniably clear that the relationships in question were consensual from the start. I remain fully committed to defending my reputation and will not hesitate to take further legal action if necessary to hold accountable those responsible for false accusations.”

The two defendants said they were pleased with the development.

A statement by Dorsey’s lawyer said the settlement will exclusively be paid from insurance “and constituted less than 0.3% of the damages professor Wright sought in the litigation,” according to Law.com.

“Settling this case was a difficult decision, but it allows me to continue my advocacy work without the distraction or continued trauma of ongoing litigation,” Dorsey said in a statement cited by Law.com.

Wright has the option of refiling his claim within six months against Landry. Her lawyer, Stacey Rose Harris, told Law.com that the dismissal “obviously speaks for itself.”

“Parties ‘vindicated’ in litigation don’t voluntarily dismiss their own claims on the eve of trial,” Harris said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from…

Tort Law

Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from doing this, putting his Florida condo at risk

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 7, 2025, 10:34 am CST

Disbarred lawyer Rudy Giuliani is “in dire jeopardy” of having to turn over his Palm Beach, Florida, condo to two Georgia election workers who sued him for defamation after a federal judge held the former New York City mayor in civil contempt Monday, according to a report by Politico.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York barred Giuliani from presenting evidence on the primary defense that would allow him to keep the Florida condo after he failed to provide information that would help determine whether the property was his primary residence, Politico reports.

Liman’s decision allows him to draw negative inferences about Giuliani’s Florida residency, report the New York Times and Law.com.

The trial on whether 80-year-old Giuliani is entitled to keep the condo is scheduled for next week before Liman. At issue is whether the condo is Giuliani’s homestead entitled to protection under the Florida Constitution.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Politico, Law.com and the New York Times, include Reuters, the Associated Press and CNN.

The election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, won a $148 million defamation verdict against Giuliani after he accused them of election fraud in the 2020 election. Giuliani was formerly a lawyer for President-elect Donald Trump.

Giuliani had claimed in now-dismissed bankruptcy proceedings that his New York co-op apartment was his homestead residence, which protected a portion of it in bankruptcy proceedings, according to a Dec. 27 decision denying Giuliani’s motion for summary judgment. After the bankruptcy dismissal, Giuliani declared Florida to be his domicile.

The contempt finding was for Giuliani’s failure to provide evidence about his primary residence, according to the New York Times.

Giuliani did not turn over full names of his doctors or provide a full list of other professional service providers, leading the judge to conclude that none was in Florida before Giuliani changed his residence there in January 2024, the AP explains. Liman also barred Giuliani from presenting testimony or electronic communications to establish the Florida homestead.

Giuliani could also be held in contempt separately for failing to turn over property, the New York Times says.

Giuliani has already turned over designer watches and a 1980 Mercedes-Benz convertible. He is also moving to turn over his Manhattan apartment in New York City. He did not provide a framed jersey of baseball player Joe DiMaggio, however, which he said he can’t find. Nor did he turn over his grandfather’s pocket watch, which he pulled out during the hearing Monday, saying he fears that it will be lost.

The liability verdict was delivered in a trial held only to determine damages after a different federal judge entered a default liability judgment against Giuliani for failing to provide meaningful discovery. That federal judge, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia, has scheduled a separate contempt hearing against Giuliani for Friday for alleged violation of an agreement not to make new defamatory claims about the election workers, Politico reports.

Giuliani said in his podcast Monday evening the New York court’s request for information was “enormously burdensome,” and he had already released “hundreds and hundreds of pages of discovery.” according to reporting by CNN. He said he didn’t have to testify because the judge “had already made up his mind.”

Giuliani’s spokesperson, Ted Goodman, released a statement. Freeman and Moss “might be happy to fight to take away Mayor Giuliani’s most cherished personal belongings, including his signed baseball jersey of his childhood hero and his grandfather’s pocket watch, but they can never take away his extraordinary record of public service,” Goodman said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer’s mistaken Zelle transfer leads to…

Ethics

Lawyer’s mistaken Zelle transfer leads to ethics complaint

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 5, 2024, 9:30 am CST

An Ohio lawyer mistakenly sent $550 via money transfer app Zelle to an Illinois resident, peppered him with emails and texts while a bank fraud department investigated, and then sued him after the money was returned, according to an ethics complaint by the Dayton Bar Association.

An Oct. 31 ethics complaint alleges that Dayton, Ohio, lawyer Christine M. Baker violated attorney ethics rules by filing a lawsuit with false statements without basis in law or fact.

The ethics complaint also alleges that Baker engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law by “aggressively waging a campaign of attack” against the mistaken Zelle recipient and his wife.

The Legal Profession Blog summarized the ethics complaint.

Baker denied the allegations in an interview with the ABA Journal. Everything in the suit is true, she says, and one of its aims was to recover damages for the “serious legwork” that she did trying to get her money back.

Baker had intended to send $550 to her husband, Zachary Reynolds, on Sept. 19 and 20 in 2023. Instead, she typed an email address that apparently differed from her husband’s by one character and sent the money to an Illinois resident named Zack Reynolds, the ethics complaint says.

On Sept. 21, 2023, Reynolds in Illinois contacted his bank after noticing the mistaken transfer. He was informed that the bank’s fraud department would handle the matter, and he should not send funds related to the Zelle transfer.

By Sept. 22, 2023, Baker had learned Illinois Reynolds’ cellphone number, email address, personal address, employer, charity affiliations, wife’s identity, contact information for his wife’s employer and his wife’s email address.

According to the ethics complaint, Baker sent electronic communications Sept. 22, 2023, that allegedly included:

  • A text to Illinois Reynolds, telling him that his retention of the money is “unlawful,” and if he did not return the money in 24 hours, “collection, garnishment and all available recovery methods will commence, including notifying your employer of your conduct.”

  • Another text threatening to sue Illinois Reynolds, informing him that he is a “thief,” threatening to tell a charity affiliated with Reynolds that he committed a “theft,” and saying she should share the information with “anyone with a basic internet connection.”

  • Yet another text telling Illinois Reynolds that he and his wife were being named in a civil action for unjust enrichment. The text included an address thought to be his “in an effort to intimidate” him and his wife, according to the complaint.

  • An email threatening a suit to Illinois Reynolds’ wife, a third grade teacher, using her school email address.

In additional texts, Baker forwarded materials to Illinois Reynolds’ employer and co-worker “in an effort to cast him in a negative light and to disparage him,” the ethics complaint says.

On Sept. 24, 2023, Illinois Reynolds was advised that the funds were being returned to Baker.

“At no time did Mr. Reynolds try to prevent the funds from being returned or attempt to keep the funds,” the ethics complaint says. “He simply followed the advice of his bank about not returning the funds himself since the nature of the transaction was suspicious for fraud.”

The funds were available in Baker’s account Oct. 3, 2023, yet Baker filed suit Nov. 17, 2023, the ethics complaint says. She filed an amended suit in December 2023.

The suit was removed to federal court and dismissed without prejudice at her request, according to a February order.

Court records for Montgomery County, Ohio, indicate that Baker filed a new suit
for alleged defamation, conversion and emotional distress against Reynolds on Oct. 30.

Alleged false statements in the amended suit included:

  • An allegation that Illinois Reynolds advised Baker “that he would take no steps to return the money.” In reality, Illinois Reynolds said, “Considering this is your error, I find your threats offensive, and they are noted. You can follow the appropriate channels with [name of his bank] to recoup your mistake.”

  • An allegation that Illinois Reynolds told Baker that she would have to serve him with papers to recover her money. In reality, Reynolds said, “As I mentioned to you, as advised by my bank and attorney, [name of bank]’s fraud department is handling the dispute. … Based on your behavior, all involved assume this is a scam. If it’s not a scam, you should be ashamed and embarrassed by your behavior.” Baker responded by saying if Illinois Reynolds is represented by a lawyer, he should refer the lawyer to her. Reynolds responded, “I suggest you call [bank’s name] or formally serve me papers. I will no longer respond to any attempts to contact me.”

Baker told the Journal that the ethics charges are “if not inflated, falsified.”

“I think the DBA alleges that I filed a lawsuit with misleading or untruthful information, and that I didn’t cooperate with the DBA’s initial inquiry,” she says.

“I of course deny both of those claims. Everything I’ve ever said to anyone about this matter was, is and will always be true. I also was very cooperative with the Dayton Bar Association. What they referred to as my noncooperation was my request, rather insistence even, to meet with the Dayton Bar Association’s broader panel via Zoom,” she says.

Baker said her suit had claimed that Illinois Reynolds defamed her in statements during the Dayton Bar Association investigation and to a representative in Illinois. It also sought $2,500 in damages for conversion.

“Conversion is taking or keeping something that isn’t yours,” Baker says. Illinois Reynolds “told me that he wasn’t going to return my money unless I pursued it, and it took me hours of time to pursue it.”

“And for that, the DBA is responding I think disproportionately,” Baker says. The conversion allegation is “a true claim, it’s a claim with a basis in law and fact.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge allows malicious prosecution claim…

Law Firms

Judge allows malicious prosecution claim in attorney’s countersuit against McElroy Deutsch

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 2, 2024, 2:48 pm CDT

A lawyer who countersued McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter for defamation and retaliation may add a malicious prosecution claim to the action, a New Jersey judge has ruled.

Lawyer Nicole Alexander, McElroy Deutsch’s former director of business and professional development, countersued after the law firm filed a lawsuit against her and her husband, former McElroy Deutsch chief financial officer John Dunlea. MeElroy Deutsch accused the couple of “business-card abuse” and Dunlea of paying himself unauthorized bonuses.

Law360 covered the Sept. 27 decision and spoke with Jeffrey Pollock of Fox Rothschild, who is Alexander’s lawyer.

“It may be great sport for McElroy to destroy a former employee’s life, but this claim was wrongful when it was filed, and it is tortious to maintain it,” Pollock told Law360.

Dunlea pleaded guilty in May to embezzling more than $1.5 million from the firm over a six-year period and failing to pay more than $22,000 in state income taxes. He was sentenced to five years in state prison in July.

Alexander has said she was unaware of wrongdoing. She filed a separate suit arguing that the firm engaged in marital-status discrimination because it fired her based on her marriage to Dunlea. The two cases have been consolidated, Law.com previously reported.

See also:

Former McElroy Deutsch CFO faces criminal charges for alleged $1.5M embezzlement

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. It’s ‘past time to proceed to the merits’…

Law Firms

It’s ‘past time to proceed to the merits’ in fired BigLaw associate’s bias case, judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 16, 2024, 12:26 pm CDT

A federal judge in California last week refused to toss an amended gender-bias and retaliation lawsuit filed against Kirkland & Ellis by a fired associate, saying “it is past time to proceed to the merits.”

“There already has been more than enough ink spilled on aggressive pleading litigation in this case,” said U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California in a Sept. 10 order.

Gilliam’s ruling allows fired associate Zoya Kovalenko to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, violation of California anti-discrimination law and violation of the Equal Pay Act, report Law.com and Bloomberg Law.

But Gilliam granted Kirkland’s motion to dismiss a defamation claim in connection with her performance review because it was filed one day after the one-year deadline.

Kovalenko had alleged in an October 2022 suit that male associates in the intellectual property litigation group at Kirkland were treated better and paid more money than females, leading to “an alarmingly high turnover of female associates relative to male associates.”

Kovalenko claimed that she was fired in September 2021 after complaining about disparate treatment and was then falsely told that poor performance was the reason that she was let go.

Gilliam said Kirkland and other defendants could have raised most, if not all, of their arguments in their prior “extensive” dismissal motions.

“But the tiresome reality is that denying the motion on this ground would result in yet another round of pleading litigation,” and that is why he ruled on the merits, Gilliam said.

Gilliam also said a motion by two partner defendants for reconsideration of prior rulings was “duplicative” and appeared to rely on some “repackaged” arguments rejected in a prior court order.

The judge also rejected Kirkland’s motion to overturn rulings by a magistrate judge who refused to allow the law firm to subpoena Kovalenko’s former employers Fish & Richardson and Paul Hastings. Kirkland had sought documents on Kovalenko’s work performance, leaves of absence and medical records at the prior firms.

Kovalenko’s performance at prior firms is only “marginally relevant” to her performance and treatment at Kirkland, Gilliam said. In addition, Gilliam said, the magistrate judge did not clearly err by requiring more evidence before allowing access to “such extremely sensitive personal information” regarding medical records.

Gilliam is an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The case is Kovalenko v. Kirkland & Ellis.

See also:

‘Routine performance management’ can’t be basis for fired associate’s bias suit, BigLaw firm argues

Kirkland & Ellis must face ex-associate’s sex bias claims, federal court says

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law firm can sue over alleged fake online…

First Amendment

Law firm can sue over alleged fake online reviews that toppled its top rating, appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 19, 2024, 2:37 pm CDT

A Houston law firm alleging that it was defamed by 99 fake three-star reviews on its Google business page can sue for defamation for 62 of those reviews, an Ohio appeals court has ruled.

Lawyer R. James Amaro and the Amaro Law Firm in Texas can’t sue for reviews that are mere opinions, according to the Aug. 28 decision by the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. But it can sue for the 62 reviews describing fictitious interactions or experiences with the firm that can be proven true or false, the appeal court said.

Court News Ohio covered the decision in a recent story noted by the Legal Profession Blog.

The actionable reviews included language such as “no follow-up,” “never called me back,” “never updated me,” “never responded,” “no communication” and “did not answer call.” Other actionable reviews had language indicating that the writer was a client, such as “no idea what is going on with case.”

The appeals court described the actionable reviews as “no communication reviews” and “client language reviews.”

But the firm can’t sue over reviews that gave the firm three stars, with no text included or with positive evaluations, or that contained only a subjective evaluation, such as “poor communication” and “no timely response.”

The Amaro Law Firm had more than 1,500 positive reviews and a perfect five-star rating before the negative reviews appeared in 2022, the firm said in its lawsuit. Because of the high rating, the firm appeared near the top of Google search results for personal injury firms.

The reviews were written in the name of people who were never clients or were never potential clients, the firm’s suit said. In response to a subpoena, Google said all the negative reviews were from an IP address assigned to the Ohio residence of two people—who became the suit defendants.

The defendants had claimed that the reviews were constitutionally protected statements of opinion. They also sought to dismiss causes of action for invasion of privacy, trade libel and tortious interference with business relations on the ground that they are derivative of the defamation claims.

A trial judge in Licking County, Ohio, agreed with the defendants and dismissed the entire suit in December 2023. The appeals court reversed, allowing the defamation claims for 62 reviews, as well as the other causes of action.

“Both the client language reviews and the no communication reviews contain specific and unambiguous statements,” the appeals court said. “Whether a law firm called or did not call someone, followed-up or did not follow up with someone, and whether a reviewer had a case with appellant each have a commonly understood meaning. The language in these reviews is not so hyperbolic so as to undermine the reader’s impression that the reviews allege appellant did not return calls, follow up or were a client of appellant.”

The case is Amaro v. DeMichael.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2nd Circuit cites push notifications to jurors…

Tort Law

2nd Circuit cites push notifications to jurors as one reason why Sarah Palin deserves new defamation trial

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 28, 2024, 2:54 pm CDT

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Republican, is entitled to a new trial in her defamation case against the New York Times, partly because a jury finding of no liability was marred by push notifications received by jurors, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York said U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York wrongly intruded on the province of the jury when he ruled during deliberations that the case should be dismissed because of insufficient evidence that the newspaper and one of its editors acted with actual malice.

Rakoff allowed the jury to issue a verdict anyway, and it found no liability. But the verdict was marred by some of Rakoff’s decisions and by push notifications that some jurors received about Rakoff’s finding of no actual malice, the appeals court said in its Aug. 28 opinion.

Law360 covered the 2nd Circuit’s decision in favor of Palin, a Republican who was the 2008 vice presidential candidate. She had sued over a June 2017 editorial linking the shooting of a Democratic congresswoman with a digital crosshairs graphic published by Palin’s political action committee.

Rakoff’s law clerk had learned about the push notifications when interviewing jurors following the verdict to see whether they had problems understanding the legal instructions.

A push notification from a news application can appear at the top of a cellphone or on a lockscreen even when the app is closed, the 2nd Circuit explained.

Jurors said they were not prejudiced by the push notifications, which were “an unfortunate surprise” to Rakoff, the appeals court said. But Rakoff was wrong in concluding that the jury verdict was not prejudiced, the appeals court concluded.

“Given a judge’s special position of influence with a jury, we think a jury’s verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge’s already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry,” the 2nd Circuit said. “We therefore conclude that a new trial is warranted on this basis.”

The 2nd Circuit panel also said Rakoff erred by excluding some evidence offered by Palin and by improper jury instructions.

The New York Times editorial had linked a 2011 shooting that wounded then-U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, a Democrat from Arizona, to a map by Palin’s political action committee showing targeted electoral districts in a crosshairs. Six people were killed in the shooting, including a federal judge.

The New York Times had declared that “the link to political incitement was clear,” even though the attack was viewed as stemming from the perpetrator’s mental illness, according to the 2nd Circuit.

The New York Times later issued corrections saying the crosshairs were placed over targeted electoral districts, not photos of politicians, and saying there was no established link between political rhetoric and the shooting.

Palin sued the New York Times and James Bennet, then the editorial page editor, who had written the sentence about the link to political incitement being clear.

The 2nd Circuit said Rakoff should have allowed evidence that Bennet’s brother, Michael Bennet, was a Colorado Democratic U.S. senator, that Bennet was involved in his brother’s 2010 reelection bid, that the crosshairs map targeted the districts of two Democrats in the House of Representatives who endorsed Bennet’s brother, and that Palin had endorsed the person running against Sen. Bennet.

The appeals court said the evidence was relevant, and it could lead a reasonable juror to infer that Bennet had “a reason to personally dislike Palin, and that it was therefore more likely that he intentionally or recklessly, rather than inadvertently, connected her” to the shooter who wounded Giffords.

Rakoff should also have allowed introduction of three prior New York Times opinion articles that could “be plausibly read” as casting significant doubt on links between the shooting and the crosshairs map, the 2nd Circuit said. Bennet had testified that he “must have read” the prior articles.

Judge John M. Walker Jr., an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, wrote the panel opinion. It was the second time that the 2nd Circuit ruled in the case. Rakoff had previously tossed the case without a trial, but the appeals court ruled in 2019 that he followed the wrong procedure and reinstated the lawsuit.

The case is Palin v. New York Times Co.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law prof presses male sex-bias allegations…

Law Professors

Law prof presses male sex-bias allegations in new suit after federal judge tosses his Title IX claim

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 7, 2024, 10:42 am CST

Updated: A professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law has filed a new lawsuit against the school stemming from a former associate dean’s alleged comments in 2016 that she didn’t want to see white men teaching anymore in the trial advocacy program that he headed.

Law professor David Schott alleges in his Feb. 2 suit that he notified the law school dean of the alleged comments by Viva Moffat, the associate dean of academic affairs. In the years that followed, he was subjected to a “steady barrage of adverse actions and false statements,” the suit contends.

Law360 has coverage.

The adverse actions culminated with the law school’s failure to renew Schott’s seven-year contract, which should have taken effect in the 2020-2021 school year. As a result, the suit says, Schott was relegated “to the status of an at-will employee and [deprived] of the procedural protections to which he would be entitled as a member of DU’s long-term contract faculty.”

Schott alleges breach of contract, defamation, gross negligence, violations of Colorado wage law and sex-based wage discrimination under the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act.

Schott filed the suit in state court in Denver less than a month after a federal judge tossed his prior suit alleging that his teaching contract was not renewed because he is a man.

The Denver Post and Bloomberg Law via the TaxProf Blog covered the Jan. 4 dismissal of that suit, which alleged retaliation and sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The federal judge ruled Jan. 4 that Schott had not shown a “materially adverse” action because his employment had not significantly changed. Schott “has not sought medical treatment, has not been fired, his pay has not been reduced, and he has received merit raises from the university in the years following the 2016 allegations and his contract nonrenewal,” wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Christine M. Arguello of the District of Colorado.

Arguello declined to rule on 10 other claims in the federal suit because they involve state law, rather than federal law, according to the Denver Post. Schott’s lawyers have filed notice that they will appeal Arguello’s decision.

Both suits cite comments by Moffat, who allegedly told Schott that she wanted to “see friendly faces, faces of minority women, preferably African-American women.” Schott’s new suit alleges tortious interference with a contract by Moffat.

Shortly after Moffat’s comments, she informed Schott that there had been reports of gender discrimination in the Center for Advocacy at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Those reports were “utterly unfounded” according to the new suit.

One unfounded allegation involved a female professor from another law school who told four female students that they sounded “b- – – -y” during a summer program in Scotland, the suit says. The other involved an allegation that a female student was asked whether she could make the required time commitment when she tried out for for the law school’s national trial team. Everyone was asked this question, the suit says.

Schott requested a formal hearing on the allegations, but it was denied. He was later presented with a “statement of expectations” with five action items that he must carry out because of the gender discrimination allegations.

Schott developed a “plan of action” that substantially complied with the statement of expectations, and it was fully carried out, the suit says. He heard nothing more about his plan from university officials, until the allegations were later used to improperly deny renewal of his teaching contract, Schott’s suit says.

Before the contract renewal, Moffat allegedly reported that she had heard from female students about the “b- – – -y” comment, as well as hearing concerns that female students were asked about personal relationships, one female student was asked whether her husband approved of her participation on the advocacy team, and one student thought that she had to choose between the team and her academic/legal future.

The allegations about the “b- – – -y” comment and husband approval were already part of the Title IX complaint, which was dismissed without a finding of wrongdoing, the suit says. The other allegations were false or made with reckless disregard of their truthfulness, the suit says.

Schott also claimed that he reached a verbal deal with the law school to teach additional classes in exchange for a year in which he would be relieved of his teaching duties, but the school did not live up to the agreement after he increased his teaching duties.

Beginning in 2021, Scott’s annual salary was $115,609, which included his base salary and a stipend for working as the director of the school’s Center for Advocacy. The amount is less than the compensation received by female practice professors, the suit says.

Updated Feb. 7 at 3:40 p.m. to report that law professor David Schott’s lawyers have filed notice that they will appeal Senior U.S. District Judge Christine M. Arguello’s decision.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After sanctions threat, Trump lawyer in $83.3M…

Trials & Litigation

After sanctions threat, Trump lawyer in $83.3M defamation case drops conflict claim stemming from BigLaw overlap

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 31, 2024, 10:24 am CST

A lawyer for former President Donald Trump is backing away from a claim that an opposing lawyer and the judge in a defamation case involving writer E. Jean Carroll had an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba had told the New York Post she will appeal an $83.3 million verdict against Trump partly because the plaintiff’s lawyer and the judge both worked at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in the 1990s.

Habba said in a Jan. 30 letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York she is now satisfied that there was no “mentor-mentee relationship” between Kaplan and opposing lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who are not related, when they worked at Paul Weiss.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law have coverage.

Habba had raised the issue in a prior letter, leading Roberta Kaplan to respond that the accusation of such a relationship was “utterly baseless” and she reserved the right to seek sanctions if Habba continues her “false accusations of impropriety.”

“From the very start of the recently concluded trial, Donald Trump and Ms. Habba have pushed a false narrative of judicial bias so that they could characterize any jury verdict against Trump as the product of a corrupt system,” Kaplan wrote in her own letter to the judge.

Jurors awarded $83.3 million to Carroll on Friday in the writer’s second defamation lawsuit against Trump for denying her claims of sexual assault in a department store dressing room during two time periods—before October 2022 and after a defamation verdict in May 2023 in the first case. Jurors awarded Carroll $18.3 million in compensatory damages for defamation and $65 million in punitive damages.

Jurors in the first case found that Trump had sexually abused Carroll but did not rape her. Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages in the prior case partly for the sexual assault under a law giving survivors a one-year window to sue for time-barred claims and partly for defamation stemming from a denial by Trump in October 2022.

Habba still plans to appeal both verdicts. Habba said in her first letter to Kaplan his “overtly hostile” treatment of Trump and his “preferential treatment” of Carroll’s lawyers would be an issue in her appeal.

Another issue in the second case could be whether the punitive damages are excessive under the due process clause.

See also:

“Judge chastises Trump in defamation trial, lectures lawyers on procedural rules, says ‘this is not a tag-team lawyering’”