Trump Org Must Face Claims in Michael Cohen Legal Fees Lawsuit
It's not yet clear how much of Cohen's hefty outstanding legal fees are related to investigations that could be covered by the Trump Organization's alleged commitment to pay his bills.
August 28, 2019 at 07:29 PM
4 minute read
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's incarcerated former attorney, has convinced a judge to allow discovery in part of his lawsuit seeking more than $1 million in legal fees against the president's real estate company.
Cohen sued earlier this year, seeking to make the Trump Organization cover the more than $3.8 million in legal fees and criminal penalties for which Cohen is liable. The Trump Organization said it made no open-ended commitment to pay Cohen's legal bills, however, much less the money he was ordered to pay as part of his convictions for tax, election spending and perjury-type offenses.
In a mixed ruling on a motion to dismiss, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joel Cohen on Wednesday agreed that the Trump Organization could not be required to pay Michael Cohen's criminal penalties, which is a position that his lawyers retreated from at oral argument earlier this month. But the judge concluded Cohen's alleged agreement with Trump Organization general counsel Alan Garten to have his lawyers' bills covered "is enforceable to the extent it covers legal proceedings and investigations that were pending in July 2017, when the agreement allegedly was made."
"It is not enforceable, however, with respect to legal proceedings and investigations that began after the agreement was reached," the judge wrote in his decision.
Cohen can now seek evidence to try to prove the Trump Organization understood the scope of the alleged commitment in the same way he did. The judge said in a footnote that "to be enforceable, such an agreement would have to be confirmed by the Trump Organization in writing, or by audio recording, or by the testimony of Trump Organization witnesses."
Justice Cohen noted that by the time July 2017 rolled around, committees of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate had announced probes into Russian interference, Michael Cohen had received a subpoena from one of them, and special counsel Robert Mueller had been appointed. But he expressly ruled that the "criminal case against Cohen related to his alleged misleading congressional investigators" fell outside of that window.
Much of the judge's analysis hinged on the statute of frauds, which requires agreements that can't be performed within a year to be put in writing. He said Garten's alleged oral commitment didn't satisfy that law, nor did Cohen's production of a letter from his lawyer that referred to indemnification for a specific congressional probe, nor did the Trump Organization's payment of some of Cohen's legal bills.
But evidence of a commitment to pay legal bills incurred by the president's "fixer" for matters that were pending at the time of the alleged agreement may exist in the Trump Organization's records, the judge noted.
Cohen said in his complaint that his unpaid legal bills totaled $1.9 million, with more than $1 million owed to McDermott Will & Emery and the balance owed to firms including Petrillo Klein & Boxer, Blakely Law Group, Lanny Davis' law firm Davis Goldberg & Galper and Monico & Spevack.
"We are pleased with the court's decision permitting Mr. Cohen's case to proceed," W. Hunter Winstead, a lawyer at Gilbert who represents Cohen, said in an email. "We intend to pursue the litigation vigorously and to obtain full payment of Mr. Cohen's claims."
"The judge's decision was thoughtful and took a large chunk out of the plaintiff's claims," said Marc Mukasey of Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff, who represents the Trump Organization, in an email. "We look forward to doing away with the leftover claims in due course."
|Read More
Judge Questions Michael Cohen's Bid for Indemnification From Trump Org
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 AllTrade Secret Litigation: How Will AI Innovations Likely Be Litigated?
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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