Judge Questions Michael Cohen's Bid for Indemnification From Trump Org
More than $1 million of the $1.9 million in legal fees Cohen is seeking to have the Trump Organization pay is owed to McDermott Will & Emery.
August 06, 2019 at 06:11 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen took tough questions from a New York judge in their effort to make the Trump Organization pay for Cohen’s $3.8 million in legal fees, back taxes and criminal penalties.
After oral arguments Tuesday, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joel Cohen didn’t rule or indicate that he had his mind made up between Cohen’s version of events and the one advanced by the president’s real estate company. He pondered aloud whether Trump’s company could be made to pay for certain costs.
The judge’s questioning did prompt W. Hunter Winstead, Cohen’s lawyer and a partner at Gilbert, to back off a position taken in Cohen’s complaint that the Trump Organization is on the hook for certain amounts that Cohen was ordered to pay as part of his criminal sentence. At least the $1.3 million in back taxes Cohen was made to pay is “not appropriate for reimbursement,” Winstead said. Other amounts he said he would have to parse more closely.
That leaves about $1.9 million in legal fees and perhaps another $600,000 related to his criminal case that Cohen could still be seeking from the Trump Organization. More than $1 million of the $1.9 million in legal fees is owed to McDermott Will & Emery. The remainder is owed to firms including Petrillo Klein & Boxer, Blakely Law Group, Lanny Davis’ law firm Davis Goldberg & Galper and Monico & Spevack.
Cohen filed his suit in March, alleging an indemnification agreement required the Trump Organization to reimburse him for the expenses. He was an executive at the organization until early 2017.
Most of Tuesday’s hearing was focused on the nature of the Trump Organization’s alleged commitment to cover Cohen’s legal bills. In an affidavit, Cohen said Alan Garten, the real estate company’s general counsel, made an oral agreement in July 2017 to cover his legal bills.
The scope of any such deal, which Cohen’s lawyer Steve Ryan of McDermott mentioned in a letter to Garten that sought payment, was fiercely debated at Tuesday’s hearing.
Marc Mukasey of Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff, who represents the Trump Organization, said it was simply not plausible that Garten had pledged to cover every dime of Cohen’s legal bills for the indefinite future. He said a more reasonable reading of Ryan’s letter was that it applied to a single congressional investigation that was alluded to.
Winstead said his client’s records showed that was not the case, however. The Trump Organization paid for more than $1 million of Cohen’s legal bills that clearly went beyond a single congressional probe, he said, and further discovery would make that even clearer.
Justice Cohen’s questions highlighted that the open-ended nature of the alleged commitment made by the Trump Organization, and he explored whether Trump’s company could be made to pay for costs related to some of Cohen’s legal troubles, but not others. While the statute of frauds requires long-term commitments be put to writing, the judge raised the prospect that the Trump Organization had agreed to pay the costs for investigations that existed at the time, if not for the dozen-ish that eventually arose.
“As a general rule, if part of an entire contract is void under the statute of frauds, the whole contract is void,” he said later, putting a question to Mukasey. “However, where an oral agreement is severable, meaning susceptible to division and apportionment … that part which, if standing alone, is not required to be in writing, may be enforced.”
Mukasey said he didn’t think that’s what Cohen had argued in his complaint.
The judge didn’t indicate when he would rule on the Trump Organization’s motion to dismiss.
Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion, campaign-finance violations and lying to Congress. He is currently incarcerated at Otisville Federal Correctional Institution, with a release date of Dec. 13, 2021, according to records from the Bureau of Prisons.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250