Working Pro Bono for Trump, Rudy Giuliani in Divorce Proceedings Says He Can't Afford Wife's Expenses
Rudolph Giuliani, the public face of President Donald Trump's legal team, appeared in a Manhattan courtroom on Wednesday to deal with his own legal issues: a divorce from his third wife, who claims that the well-heeled former New York City mayor has cut her off financially.
November 07, 2018 at 02:29 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Rudolph Giuliani, the public face of President Donald Trump's legal team, appeared in a Manhattan courtroom on Wednesday to deal with his own legal issues: a divorce from his third wife, who claims that the well-heeled former New York City mayor has cut her off financially.
Since Giuliani, who served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1983 to 1989, split with Greenberg Traurig this past spring, he has been working pro bono for Trump and has taken on the task of mounting legal defenses for Trump, often in front of television cameras.
In recent months, Giuliani, 74, has worked on behalf of a lobbying firm seeking to influence the Romanian government on how it approaches ethics enforcement and, according to a report from ProPublica and WNYC, been making frequent trips to Russia, Armenia and Ukraine.
All told, Giuliani made $9.5 million last year, said Bernard Clair of Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Lans & Rottenstreich, who represents Giuliani's estranged wife, in a hearing before Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Michael Katz.
The hearing, in which Clair laid out information from the couple's financial records, provided a glimpse into the former mayor's lavish lifestyle—one that includes $12,012 spent on cigars from April to August, as well as more than $7,000 on ink pens.
In that period, Giuliani spent almost $900,000, of which a small portion was charged to a Greenberg Traurig credit card. Giuliani made between $4 million and $6 million while at the firm, Clair said.
But Clair said that, since Giuliani started working full-time for Trump, Giuliani appears to have developed “sudden income deficit syndrome” in the case of his wife, but that he has spent six figures to support his alleged mistress and her family, including paying for their travel expenses.
“My client doesn't care about romantic interest or otherwise, she really doesn't,” Clair said. “What she cares about is that these expenses, for these people, are continuing while she's not received any direct support since August,” Clair said.
Judith Giuliani, who married Rudolph Giuliani in 2003, seeks $63,000 in monthly support as well as costs associated with the couple's six properties, which includes a Park Avenue apartment and two condominiums in Palm Beach, Florida, and costs for country club memberships.
Faith Miller of Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr, who represents Rudolph Giuliani in the matter, said that Giuliani has spent $150,000 each month on the couple's living expenses, calling Clair's characterization of her client “insulting.”
“If he chooses to work without compensation for the president, I submit that he should be entitled to do so,” Miller said.
Rudolph Giuliani moved in the case to impose a gag order on his estranged wife; Miller said that allowing his wife to discuss the couple's divorce publicly could “impact his ability to make a living.”
Katz said that the potential effects of Judith Giuliani discussing the case on her husband's income is not an appropriate legal standard for imposing a gag order, but told the parties that he is “not particularly interested in having the case litigated in the press.”
Judith Giuliani filed for divorce in April, just days after he took a tour of a New Hampshire hospital run by his alleged mistress, Maria Ryan, which a local ABC affiliate filmed for a news segment.
After the visit, Rudolph Giuliani and Ryan reportedly took a trip together to a resort hotel.
Despite their feuding over finances, the Giulianis appeared cordial in the courtroom: when she entered, Judith Giuliani approached Rudolph Giuliani, who was wearing a black suit with pinstripes, shook his hand and said, “Nice to see you.”
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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