In Closing Arguments Over Extortion Charges, Michael Avenatti Portrayed as 'Zealous Advocate'
Critically, prosecutors alleged that Avenatti hid the proposed payments from his client and used the information he supplied to his own benefit.
February 11, 2020 at 06:44 PM
4 minute read
Attorneys for Michael Avenatti told a Manhattan federal jury Tuesday that their client was "on a mission" to settle claims on behalf of a youth basketball coach when he was arrested last year on charges that he tried to extort sports apparel giant Nike for millions of dollars.
In closing arguments that capped a nearly two-week trial, defense attorneys Scott and Howard Srebnick painted the embattled celebrity lawyer as a zealous advocate for his client, who was prepared to bring his considerable media profile to bear in order to expose corruption at Nike.
The descriptions ran contrary to assertions by Manhattan federal prosecutors that Avenatti had used claims from California basketball coach Gary Franklin to secure a payday for himself in order to wipe out mounting personal debts.
Avenatti, who rose to prominence representing adult film star Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump, is charged with two counts of extortion and honest-services fraud for threatening to go public with allegations that Nike had paid bribes to the families of top high school basketball recruits, unless the Oregon-based firm agreed to pay him between $15 million and $25 million to head an internal investigation of the company.
Howard Srebnick on Tuesday acknowledged that his client could be "harsh," "abrasive" and sometimes "chest-pounding" in his professional dealings. But, he said, that was exactly the type of powerful persona that led Franklin to hire Avenatti in the first place.
"In the words of Nike itself, he went in there to 'just do it' for his client," Srebnick said, quoting the company's iconic marketing slogan.
Prosecutors on Tuesday morning played a recording of Avenatti's March 2019 meeting with Nike's attorneys, in which he promised to "take $10 billion off of your client's market cap" if the company did not accede to his demands.
"This is what extortion looks like," Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Podolsky said.
Throughout the trial, prosecutors told the jury of six men and six women that Avenatti was facing "crushing" debts of about $11 million at the time of the alleged shakedown, and presented testimony from a former employee, who said Avenatti had told her about a plan that would allow him to clear his debt and start a new law firm.
Critically, prosecutors alleged that Avenatti hid the proposed payments from his client and used the information he supplied to his own benefit.
"Why didn't he tell Franklin?" Podolsky asked. "Because he knew what he was doing was wrong."
"That's what this case is about: a betrayal of trust and a shakedown," Podolsky said.
Srebnick countered that no money ever exchanged hands, and said that Franklin would have signed off on the arrangement, had Nike ever made a formal offer.
Nike, for its part, has not denied making illicit payments to high school recruits, but its lawyers suggested the problem was limited to only a couple of executives. The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office had previously prosecuted, successfully, three executives from rival sportswear firm Adidas, and later spun off that investigation into a grand jury probe of possible crimes by Nike.
An investigation by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission remains ongoing.
Podolosky on Tuesday urged the jury to ignore any allegations of wrongdoing by Nike as mere "distractions."
"None of it matters," he said. "Whether the allegations were true of not does not change that Avenatti committed extortion."
Scott Srebnick, however, said that Nike's involvement went to the heart of the case.
"It's not a distraction," he said. "It's an extraction, an extraction of the truth."
The jury was expected to begin deliberating Wednesday.
Regardless of the outcome in New York, Avenatti's legal troubles are far from over. Prosecutors in New York have also accused him of cheating Daniels, his former client, out of part of a book deal, and he faces a sweeping indictment in California, which accuses him of stealing millions of dollars from other clients.
Read More:
Prosecutors Say Avenatti 'Sold Out' Client in Shakedown of Nike in Opening Statement
Jury to Hear About Michael Avenatti's Debts, Stormy Daniels Case in Nike Extortion Trial
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
© 2025 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 AllPrivate Equity Giant KKR Refiles SDNY Countersuit in DOJ Premerger Filing Row
3 minute readSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
- 2With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
- 3In-House Legal Network The L Suite Acquires Legal E-Learning Platform Luminate+
- 4In Police Shooting Case, Kavanaugh Bleeds Blue and Jackson ‘Very Very Confused’
- 5Trump RTO Mandates Won’t Disrupt Big Law Policies—But Client Expectations Might
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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