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:
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