Michael Avenatti outside the Daniel P. Moynihan Courthouse in Manhattan after an April hearing. Photo: David Handschuh/NYLJ.

Lawyers for Michael Cohen in a memorandum filed late Friday afternoon stuck closely to established arguments in their bid to have Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice application denied by U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York.

The brief, following Wood's instructions in an order earlier this week, included case law they argued backed up their request. The court has an obligation to “avoid the creation of a 'carnival atmosphere' in high-profile cases,” Cohen's attorney, McDermott Will & Emery partner Stephen Ryan argued, citing United States v. Smith, a 2013 case out of Manhattan federal court. This, the brief said, is exactly what Avenatti has done.

“Mr. Avenatti's deliberate public dissemination of confidential nonpublic information speaks to his character and lack of fitness to appear before this court—as well as his craving to create a 'carnival atmosphere' in this case,” the brief stated.

Cohen, President Donald Trump's private lawyer, is seeking to block participation by Avenatti, who represents the adult film actress Stormy Daniels, in proceedings around materials seized in government raids on his home and office last month.

Specifically, as before, Cohen argued Avenatti's public statements about the president's personal attorney amounted to a public “smearing” of Cohen by Avenatti “in his efforts to further his own interest in garnering as much media attention as possible.” They pointed to Avenatti's recent release of information he'd acquired about Cohen's financial dealings worth millions with domestic and international companies after Trump was elected president in 2016. Some of that information, Cohen noted, was actually about a different Michael Cohen, which only supported the argument against allowing Avenatti into the proceedings in Manhattan.

Cohen noted that the information appeared to come from a law enforcement official who leaked suspicious activity reports from the FinCEN database, which was likely illegal. Avenatti has argued federal banking law protects third-party publication of such material, but Cohen said his decision to publish the information should be troubling to the court. Cohen asked the court to further inquire about Avenatti's role in the disclosure of Cohen's bank information.

“There is a substantial likelihood that Mr. Avenatti's dissemination of these nonpublic bank records with his unique mix of inaccurate claims relating to actual bank records will interfere in the procedures in which he is seeking admission, as well as the government's investigation and the fairness of any potential proceedings concerning Mr. Cohen,” the brief stated. “Accordingly, this court should withhold from Mr. Avenatti the privilege of appearing pro hac vice before this court in this case.”

In an emailed statement, Avenatti dismissed Cohen's arguments as “without merit and frivolous.”

“It speaks volumes that they so desperately want me excluded,” Avenatti said.

The parties are currently scheduled for a hearing on Thursday in the proceeding's around federal investigators' execution of a search warrant on Cohen's home and offices in April.