Trump's Lawyer Wants Verdict Thrown Out Because Of Judge’s ‘Conflict’

United States - Ekhbary News Agency

In a move that has sparked legal debate, former President Donald Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, argued in a court filing Monday that the judge overseeing writer E. Jean Carroll's defamation trial against Trump had a conflict of interest that led to Carroll receiving "preferential treatment." However, legal experts widely believe the argument is unlikely to succeed.

A jury on Friday ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million in damages to Carroll for defaming her in 2019, after he denied her allegations of sexual assault and claimed she wasn't "his type." Habba's filing pointed to a report suggesting that Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, previously worked at the same law firm as U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan (no relation). A source claimed the judge was like Roberta Kaplan's "mentor" during their time together in the 1990s.

Habba stated this connection would be grounds for appeal, writing, "We believe, and will argue on appeal, that the Court was overtly hostile towards defense counsel and President Trump, and displayed preferential treatment towards Plaintiff’s counsel."

Roberta Kaplan vehemently denied the allegations in a letter to the court Tuesday, calling them "baseless." She stated that she and the judge only overlapped at the firm for two years and she "remembers no direct interaction from that time period with Your Honor at all," let alone them having any kind of mentor-mentee relationship. Legal experts echoed this sentiment, noting that prior professional connections between judges and attorneys are common and typically do not constitute a conflict of interest, especially when the case arises decades later.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig called Habba's argument "bogus," explaining that judges often know, socialize with, or have worked with numerous attorneys in their city. Attorney Andrew Fleischman tweeted, "No competent lawyer in the world thinks this motion has a shot." Former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance also noted Habba's previous statements about Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump needing to be loyal to him, contrasting it with her current complaint about a judge and lawyer briefly being at the same firm.

Furthermore, Habba may face consequences for her allegations. Roberta Kaplan informed the court that she and her co-counsel "reserve all rights" to seek sanctions against Habba for "false accusations of impropriety." She argued that Trump and Habba have "pushed a false narrative of judicial bias" to undermine any verdict against Trump.

Legal experts also criticized Habba's citation of ethics rules, which require recusal if a judge worked with a lawyer on the current case. This rule doesn't apply here, as the firm association predates the lawsuit by decades. As Fleischman explained, the ethics law would only apply if the lawsuit itself had been active during the time the judge and lawyer were at the firm.

While Trump's formal appeal is pending, it is unlikely to prevent him from having to pay the $83.3 million judgment. He is also appealing a separate $5 million judgment from a previous case brought by Carroll, where he was found liable for defamation and assault.

Visit Ekhbary Portal for more details.