Cohen's Lawyers Say Avenatti Has Created 'Carnival Atmosphere' in Their Bid to Block Appearance
In a brief filed late Friday, an attorney for the president's personal attorney asked U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood to deny Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice application.
May 18, 2018 at 06:20 PM
3 minute read
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.
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 AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 2Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 3Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 4Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 5'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
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