High Court Upholds Disqualification of Lawyers in Waffle House Sex Tape Fight
In a one-line order, the state Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of John Butters and David Cohen as counsel for the housekeeper who made a secretly recorded sex tape of Waffle House's former CEO.
November 06, 2017 at 02:33 PM
5 minute read
When the Supreme Court of Georgia reinstated criminal charges against two attorneys and a client who made a secret sex tape of her liaison with the chairman and former CEO of Waffle House, it didn't stop there.
In a one-line order, the high court unanimously dismissed a separate appeal by metro Atlanta lawyers David Cohen and John Butters, a former Cobb County prosecutor, over their disqualification as counsel for client Mye Brindle as “improvidently granted”—a designation meaning the court should not have accepted the case.
The court dismissed the appeal Thursday without explanation after accepting multiple briefs and hearing oral arguments on Aug. 14.
The sparse language belied the order's significance. By dismissing the appeal, the high court let stand a 2013 ruling by Cobb County Superior Court Judge Robert Leonard—and a later affirmation of that ruling by the Georgia Court of Appeals—disqualifying Cohen and Butters from representing Brindle in litigation stemming from Brindle's claims that Rogers repeatedly coerced her into sex while she was his housekeeper.
That means Brindle faces renewed felony charges based on a secret sex tape she made of Rogers, allegedly with her lawyers' knowledge and cooperation. Also, she can no longer rely on Cohen and Butters to defend her against a pending invasion of privacy suit Rogers filed in Cobb County Superior Court in 2012 tied to the recording.
A third Marietta attorney, Hylton Dupree Jr., also has represented Brindle, but his status remains unclear. Dupree, Cohen and Butters are defendants in a separate lawsuit Rogers filed against them stemming from their actions as Brindle's counsel. An appeal is pending in that case to determine whether it may go forward and, if so, against which defendants.
Brindle's interim counsel has been Darren Summerville since Cohen and Butters were disqualified.
Rogers filed the suit, which sealed the tape and barred its dissemination, after Cohen sent Rogers a demand letter in July 2012 accusing him of “a long history of unwelcome sexual demands and other sexual harassment and abuse” involving Brindle.
Brindle, who filed her own sexual harassment suit in Fulton County two days after Rogers sued, has a counterclaim pending in the Cobb case that Cohen and Butters filed on her behalf. Brindle's counterclaim accuses Rogers of sexual harassment, battery, slander and violations of state racketeering laws. The Fulton case has been dismissed.
On Thursday, the high court also reinstated two felony charges against Brindle, Cohen and Butters, as well as a third charge against Brindle, accusing them of violating the state's eavesdropping and surveillance law.
The high court let stand the dismissal of a fourth charge accusing the trio of extortion. That charge stemmed from language in Cohen's demand letter suggesting Brindle's allegations, if made public, could lead to “injurious publicity,” criminal charges or “divorce and destruction of families” as well as a later offer by Brindle's lawyers that they would settle without filing suit for $12 million.
Court records describe Brindle's video recording as depicting Rogers nude in his bathroom, shaving and then lying on his bed as Brindle manually serviced him. The actual footage was sealed by judges in Cobb and Fulton counties who also issued civil rulings that the videotaping was illegal. The indictment was handed down last year but dismissed by a Fulton County judge.
Summerville did not respond to a request for comment on Brindle's next steps. He argued before the Supreme Court in August on behalf of Brindle, Cohen and Butters that the lawyers did a “reasonable and even excellent job” representing Brindle and that the State Bar of Georgia's Rules of Professional Conduct that provided the basis for the their court-ordered disqualification “cannot be used as litigation weapons or tactics.”
Brindle's criminal defense lawyer, Reid Thompson of Marietta, also did not respond to requests for comment.
John Floyd and Michael Terry of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, who represent Butters and Cohen, did not reply to requests for comment.
Rogers' counsel, Robert Ingram of Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele in Marietta, who argued before the high court in August that Cohen and Butters should not be reinstated as Brindle's counsel, said the Supreme Court's rulings have “sent a clear message that lawyer participation in sextortion will not be tolerated, even when it occurs in the course of an attorney-client relationship. The bottom line is that lawyers cannot participate with their clients in secretly creating video recordings in a private place and then attempt to use the fruit of that criminal conduct to extort money.”
Ingram said he intends to depose Cohen and Butters on their role in how Brindle came to make the secret sex tape.
Cobb County Superior Court Judge Robert Leonard disqualified Cohen and Butters after determining the lawyers' attorney-client privilege could be pierced over the production of the videotape because the recording was made illegally. Leonard ruled that Rogers had a right to depose the lawyers on how the videotape was made, but Brindle's attorneys have not complied.
In that order, Leonard said he reviewed the recording.
“The video recording makes it clear that defendant was a willing participant in the sexual encounter and is not the victim of a sexual battery,” Leonard wrote.
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
© 2025 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 AllSunbelt Law Firms Experienced More Moderate Growth Last Year, Alongside Some Job Cuts and Less Merger Interest
4 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readGeorgia High Court Clarifies Time Limit for Lawyers' Breach-of-Contract Claims
6 minute readSoutheast Firm Leaders Predict Stability, Growth in Second Trump Administration
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1An Eye on ‘De-Risking’: Chewing on Hot Topics in Litigation Funding With Jeffery Lula of GLS Capital
- 2Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 3How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 4Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 5Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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