Prosecutors Say Avenatti 'Sold Out' Client in Shakedown of Nike in Opening Statement
Defense attorney Howard Srebnick described Avenatti as a "tenacious" and "sometimes outrageous" lawyer whose outsize public persona made him the perfect advocate to take on the sports apparel giant.
January 29, 2020 at 06:26 PM
5 minute read
A federal prosecutor told jurors in Michael Avenatti's extortion case Wednesday that the embattled celebrity lawyer had "sold out" his own client when he demanded that Nike Inc. pay him millions of dollars to keep quiet about allegedly illicit payments the company made to the families of college basketball recruits.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Sobelman said in his opening statement that Avenatti, known for his representation of adult film star Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump, had used claims by youth basketball coach Gary Franklin to "line his own pockets," rather than secure justice for his client.
The prosecutor said Avenatti used his large social media following and nearly ubiquitous media presence as a "modern weapon" to force Nike to pay him as much as $25 million to head an internal investigation of Nike's recruiting practices. The government has alleged that Avenatti did not tell Franklin about earlier offers from the company to settle Franklin's claims without paying Avenatti and fellow attorney Mark Geragos to spearhead the probe.
"When the defendant looked at the coach, he didn't see a client to help. He saw dollar signs," Sobelman told a jury of six men and six women Wednesday afternoon in Manhattan courtroom.
"The defendant had not just crossed the line, he had leaped over it with a running start," he said.
The statements came as attorneys on both sides laid out their arguments at the beginning of an anticipated two-and-a-half-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Avenatti has pleaded not guilty to charges of extortion and honest services fraud stemming from his dealings last March with Nike and its attorneys, which were recorded by federal law enforcement agents.
Defense attorney Howard Srebnick on Wednesday described Avenatti as a "tenacious" and "sometimes outrageous" lawyer whose outsize public persona made him the perfect advocate to take on the sports apparel giant.
Avenatti's negotiations, he said, were "not extortion," but rather zealous advocacy on behalf of Franklin, who had said he felt "strong-armed" by Nike, when the company pulled its $72,000 sponsorship of his California basketball league.
According to Srebnick, Franklin and an adviser came to Avenatti for restitution and to expose widespread corruption at the firm.
"It's not extortion because you use harsh language in the course of negotiations for your client," Srebnick said.
Nike has not been charged in connection with any alleged recruiting violations, and has denied wrongdoing.
Sobelman cautioned the jury that "Nike was not on trial," and said the prosecution would present evidence of Avenatti's debts at the time to show the case was all about money.
"This trial is about how Franklin was victimized by the defendant, his own lawyer," Sobelman said, adding that Avenatti had "used Franklin to make millions for himself."
Avenatti's lawyers, however, have made it clear that they intend to put Nike under a microscope and potentially call employees at the firm to testify at trial. Srebnick said Avenatti was trying to achieve dual goals of securing a settlement for Franklin, as well as preventing a "whitewashing" of his client's claims.
"That's not extortion. That's not fraud," Srebnick said. "That's litigation. That's exactly what it was."
"This courtroom," he told the jury, "will be a fight for credibility. It will be a search for the truth by you."
Avenatti, meanwhile, will wait out the trial from a jail cell in the special housing unit of the Metropolitan Correctional Center, after a federal judge in California revoked his bail in California, where he was accused in a sprawling indictment of defrauding his former clients.
He also faces a planned trial in New York on charges that he skimmed money from a book deal that was being paid to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
Avenatti has denied all charges, claiming that his outspoken stances against Trump had made him a target of the president and his Justice Department.
Prosecutors had asked U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe to keep any references to Trump and Daniels out of the extortion trial, but the judge denied the request as impractical, given Avenatti's notoriety in the press.
Gardephe did, however, allow the prosecutors to tell the jury about some $11 million in debt Avenatti had at the time he first contacted Nike last March.
Read More:
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 AllTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
SEC Under Trump 2.0 Likely to Take More 'Measured' Enforcement Approach, Observers Say
Decision of the Day: Attorney in Social Security Case Awarded Fees, But Must Pay Client Refund Under Equal Access to Justice Act
Trending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
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