Cohen's Attorneys Say Avenatti Shouldn't Be Allowed to Appear in Manhattan Federal Court
In a letter filed late Wednesday, McDermott Will & Emery partner Stephen Ryan said recent statements made by Stormy Daniels' attorney, based on documents he has no right possessing, show he should not be granted his application for pro hoc vice in the Southern District.
May 09, 2018 at 07:42 PM
4 minute read
Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels, leaves the Daniel P. Moynihan Courthouse in Manhattan after a hearing in front of Judge Kimba Wood regarding a search warrant that was executed at the home, hotel and office of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen. (Photo by David Handschuh/NYLJ)
Attorneys for Michael Cohen said Wednesday they want U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York to deny the pro hac vice application by adult film actress Stephanie Clifford's attorney, Michael Avenatti.
Cohen's team, led by McDermott Will & Emery partner Stephen Ryan, said Avenatti should be denied the ability to appear in the Southern District because of statements and material he made public Tuesday. Cohen's lawyers argued the statements and disclosures were untrue, meant to damage Cohen's reputation and based on information Avenatti possesses improperly.
“Mr. Avenatti has … deliberately distorted information from the records which appear to be in his possession for the purpose of creating a toxic mix of misinformation,” Ryan said in the letter. “He has disclosed the identities of some of Mr. Cohen's clients and has incorrectly deemed their contractual relationships and corresponding payments to be 'possibl[ly] fraudulent and illegal' without any basis to make such assertions.”
The information released by Avenatti showed funds flowing into the bank account of a shell company that was also used to make the $130,000 payment to Clifford, who uses the stage name Stormy Daniels, as part of an agreement to keep her from talking about an affair with President Donald Trump.
Avenatti claims that a company allegedly tied to a Russian oligarch close to Russian President Vladimir Putin transferred $500,000 to Cohen's account. It was just one of a number of payments made by firms and companies that flowed through the account, according to numerous reports.
In a section of Avenatti's own report, he describes what he says are possible fraudulent and illegal financial transactions Cohen was engaged in. One of the claims is of a wire transfer to Cohen from a company called Actuarial Partners Consulting into a Toronto bank account owned by a Michael Cohen.
That Michael Cohen, however, is actually a foreign aid worker in Tanzania who does work for Actuarial Partners Consulting. According to an email shared with the court, the aid worker Michael Cohen “expressed grave concerns about the breach of his privacy by Mr. Avenatti's apparently improper possession and publication of his personal bank records,” according to Ryan.
“Mr. Avenatti's conduct in somehow obtaining random bank records and publishing them without proper concern for their accuracy is extremely troubling for the parties in this case, the court, and the public,” Ryan said.
He went on to provide three other examples involving transactions from companies in Singapore, Hungary and Taiwan that Ryan says the lawyer Michael Cohen was never part of.
Ryan said that Avenatti did appear to have information from Cohen's actual bank records, including transactions with AT&T and Novartis for consultancy work by Cohen on their behalf. Ryan notes that the government, too, has been in possession of these records and others now made public since its April 9 raid on Cohen's home and offices.
To Cohen's legal team's knowledge, Avenatti has made no lawful attempt to obtain the records from the government, Ryan stated. He noted reports that the U.S. Department of Treasury is investigating whether the bank records in Avenatti's possession were improperly disseminated.
“If Mr. Avenatti wishes to be admitted pro hac vice before this court, he should be required to explain to this court how he came to possess and release this information,” Ryan said.
In an emailed statement, Avenatti called Ryan's letter “baseless, improper and sanctionable.”
“They fail to address, let alone contradict, 99 percent of the statements in what we released,” Avenatti said. “Among other things, they effectively concede the receipt of the $500,000 from those with Russian ties.”
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 AllNY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
The American Disabilities Act, Sovereign Immunity and Individual Liability
7 minute readGE Agrees to $362.5M Deal to End Shareholder Claims Over Power, Insurance Risks
2 minute readJudge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
Trending Stories
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