Looks like Stormy Daniels isn't too happy with Avenatti any more:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stormy-daniels-michael-avenatti-filed-defamation-case-against-trump-against-my-wishes

“For months I’ve asked Michael Avenatti to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense. He has repeatedly ignored those requests. Days ago I demanded again, repeatedly, that he tell me how the money was being spent and how much was left. Instead of answering me, without my permission or even my knowledge Michael launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise money on my behalf. I learned about it on Twitter.

I haven’t decided yet what to do about legal representation moving forward. Michael has been a great advocate in many ways. I’m tremendously grateful to him for aggressively representing me in my fight to regain my voice. But in other ways Michael has not treated me with the respect and deference an attorney should show to a client. He has spoken on my behalf without my approval. He filed a defamation case against Donald Trump against my wishes. He repeatedly refused to tell me how my legal defense fund was being spent. Now he has launched a new crowdfunding campaign using my face and name without my permission and attributing words to me that I never wrote or said. I’m deeply grateful to my supporters and they deserve to know their money is being spent responsibly. I don’t want to hurt Michael, but it’s time to set the record straight. The truth has always been my greatest ally."

[PoliticAverse]

1. Why do I think that one day Trump, Avenatti, and Daniels will team up on their own reality show?

[ismnotwasm]

2. Yup

He’s a useful tool when he’s under Trumps skin, but the man has an...interesting..history

[torius]

3. Isn't the legal defense fund

just going to him, in lieu of her paying him?

[Kaleva]

14. Here's what she said at the Crowd Justice site

"I need funds to pay for: attorneys' fees; out-of-pocket costs associated with the lawsuit, arbitration, and my right to speak openly; security expenses; and damages that may be awarded against me if I speak out and ultimately lose to Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen."

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stormy/

No where does it say at the fund raising site that all money will be going to Mr. Avenatti.

[LuvLoogie]

4. Mini grifter Mike

[cwydro]

5. Somehow, I'm not in the least bit surprised at this "development."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I hate to say I told you so (actually, I don't), but I told you so.

My basic gripe with Avenatti all along has been that he was not doing right by his client. As an attorney he owes a duty to his client to represent her to the best of his ability within the bounds of the law. That duty is primary and is above any other interests or desires he might have. Even though she's a porn star Stormy Daniels is entitled to the same level of professional representation as any other client, but I don't think she's been getting it, and apparently neither does she, finally. Avenatti seems to have used her lawsuit against Cohen and Trump along with her unusual, rather lurid past as media bait to get himself on TV - over and over again.

That publicity for himself was more important to him than his obligation to zealously represent Daniels became apparent to me when he tried to intervene in the federal case against Michael Cohen in the Southern District of New York, claiming that some of the documents the FBI seized from Cohen's offices had confidential information about Daniels that she didn't want disclosed publicly. But the judge told Avenatti that, because of lawyers' ethics rules in New York, if he was representing a client in a case he couldn't talk about it in the media - in other words, he had to choose between intervening to protect Daniels' documents and going on TV. He chose TV.

And then he announced he was considering running for president. A guy with exactly zero experience in government - like so many other unqualified shiny object celebrities like Oprah and George Clooney - was suddenly hailed by many, including some fanboys here on DU, as the savior of the Democrats just because he was aggressive and combative and was poking at Trump and Cohen. But the libel claim he brought against Trump on Daniels' behalf crashed and burned (which he should have known would happen if he had bothered to research SLAPP litigation), causing Daniels to owe Trump thousands in legal fees - and she says she never authorized him to do it at all. The part of her claim based on the NDA is now effectively moot because Daniels has been released from the agreement, but Avenatti doesn't want to dismiss the case because he wants to take Trump's deposition - even though there's no longer a legal reason to do it and no court would allow it for that reason. But taking Trump's deposition would be huge publicity for Avenatti even though there would be absolutely no benefit to his client.

And now it appears that Avenatti has been fund-raising on her behalf (or his?) without her knowledge or consent. I'm not at all surprised that this attorney-client relationship wouldn't end well.

[cwydro]

8. Yes, he became the darling of CNN for awhile.

And there was quite a fan club here on DU.

I never liked him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. MSNBC, too. Melber and O'Donnell seemed especially taken with him,

at least for awhile.

[cwydro]

10. Don Lemon just loved him, which disappointed me because I like Lemon.

Avenatti seems to have vanished from CNN at this point lol. I haven’t even heard him mentioned.

[oberliner]

17. The DU Avenatti Fan Club also seems to have gone silent

[cwydro]

18. Lol.

It would seem so.

[Kingofalldems]

22. Too busy celebrating the coming downfall of right wing think tank hero--

Donald Trump.

[jberryhill]

11. On the other hand...

Daniels has an incentive to claim he proceeded in the defamation case without her consent.

The court has awarded Trump’s fees. That’s on Daniels, not Avenatti. Tactically, her best move is to claim the suit was not authorized.

As far as the fundraising is concerned, that was always a legal fund. None of that money was supposed to go to her, and all of it was intended to pay Avenatti.

The well is running dry and the villagers are going to fight over the water.

When I was relatively new to the legal profession, I found it surprising that the first priority of law practice seemed to be protecting oneself against one’s own clients. If Avenatti has half a brain, then he certainly maintained evidence of consent.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. I should think his retainer agreement or some other written memo

covered the libel claim; if there isn't one then Avenatti is a damn fool and deserves whatever happens. Of course Daniels doesn't want to be stuck with those fees; regardless, the fact that the libel lawsuit was pretty hopeless in the first place might be raised in a malpractice claim even if she can't credibly claim she didn't give consent. She also claims the fundraising was done in her name but without her knowledge, and that she couldn't get Avenatti to account for it, even if it was intended for her legal fees. She would always have been entitled to an accounting. If what she says is true, that's pretty bad client relations. The one thing that gets lawyers and other professionals sued more than anything else is poor communications with clients.

I, too, learned pretty quickly that clients routinely lie to you and that you have to document everything. Daniels seems like a bright woman despite her somewhat disreputable profession, and she has to have known what was in the retainer agreement she signed and any other documents she got from him. Back in the Pleistocene era when I was practicing law we routinely sent clients copies of pleadings so they knew exactly what was going on. If Avenatti gave her a copy of the libel complaint (and he should have), and she didn't want him to go ahead with it, wouldn't she have said at the time, "Hey, I don't want you to do that!"?

I think those two probably deserve each other.

[jberryhill]

19. This is what jogged Daniels' memory, IMHO

The hearing on fees and sanctions is Monday:

Nov 16, 2018

SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge S. James Otero re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Monetary Sanctions 39 . The Court continues the Motion for Attorney Fee set for hearing on 11/26/18 to Monday, 12/3/2018 at 02:00 PM before Judge S. James Otero. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/16/2018)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Hmm. And isn't there a motion to dismiss the NDA case scheduled for the same day?

[jberryhill]

21. That one has been moved to January 22

[Oneironaut]

23. I could never understand how people don't see what a tool Avenatti is.

Everything he's done, including going to that march in London, has been a game. He's a fraud and a conman - just like Trump. I'm happy most Democrats are finally seeing the light.

[Jarqui]

7. Stick a fork in his political aspirations

There's the bankruptcy of his prior firm and Avenatti owing his former partner roughly $4.5 million on a personal guarantee - ordered/supported by the judge,

There is the misdemeanor domestic abuse charge from Avenatti's dispute with his girlfriend the LAPD is weighing.

That misdemeanor is likely to lead to civil action where the burden of proof bar is considerably lower. There is bound to be a GOP lawyer who would love to make a name for himself at Avenatti's expense.

Now, Stormy is complaining he id not get her permission to sue Trump for defamation (doubtful because she would likely have to have signed something) and Stormy is complaining about not getting an accounting of her GoFundMe donations and another one started without asking her.

That is too much trouble for Avenatti to overcome to have a legitimate shot - which many question because of his lack of political experience.

[madville]

12. A 2020 run would have just been for exposure

He wouldn't have pulled more than 5% in any state and that feels generous.

[Jarqui]

15. From my perspective, it's too bad because I liked some of what he did.

Sometimes, the Republicans seem to run all over us. It was nice having someone who could wade into the media ring and knock a few of these dishonest jerks back on their butt.

[Liberal In Texas]

13. What? A client not getting calls returned by their lawyer?

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

[Jarqui]

24. Looks like they've made up

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet