Rudy Giuliani goes through lawyers like he goes through wives — quickly, and leaving a trail of resentment and unpaid bills in his wake.
America’s erstwhile Mayor is currently in multiple federal and state courts defending his honor, along with whatever is left of his assets. And he might soon be doing it pro se, at least in New York where he faces a collection action on the $148 million defamation judgment he owes to former Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. Giuliani has already endeared himself to Judge Lewis Liman by failing to respond to court ordered discovery, stripping his Manhattan apartment of its contents before abandoning it to the plaintiffs, and arriving at an election party in the Mercedes he’d been explicitly ordered to hand over.
On Wednesday, Rudy’s attorneys Ken Caruso and David Labkowski requested permission to file “two sealed ex parte documents” to protect “confidential information” they described as “ancillary” to the court’s judicial authority. Judge Liman promptly rejected the request, noting the presumption of public access to court documents.
“Although the presumption is not strong, no countervailing factors justify the sealing of information regarding the identity and role of the declarant, the relief sought, the grounds for the motion, and the posture of the matters discussed,” he wrote. But he did allow for a partial redaction of three paragraphs containing privileged information in Caruso’s declaration. (Although, as former federal prosecutor Ken White notes, attorneys have an obligation to protect client confidences, even in ex parte communications with the court.)
In any event, Caruso and Labkowski’s plea to be cut loose is now largely visible on the public docket. And, hold on to your hats, kids, but it turns out Rudy is kind of a terrible client!
The grounds for this motion arise under Professional Rule 1.16(c)(4), (6) and (7), which provide:
a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client when: . . . (4) the client insists upon taking action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement; . . . (6) the client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; [or] . . . (7) the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively[.]
You mean a guy who got himself a default judgment after completely failing to comply with discovery, and then got himself kicked out of bankruptcy for same, and is currently claiming that he definitely resides in Florida for the purpose of the homestead exception, unless he loses, in which case he definitely resides in New York — that guy wants his lawyers to do something that isn’t 100 percent on the up and up? The devil you say!
Judge Liman has given Rudy until Monday to respond. And just in case the former head of SDNY (late of the bar, although not of a bar) is confused, the court specifies that his response should be submitted directly to chambers, cc-ing Caruso and Labkowski, but not “any other party.” A hearing on the matter is scheduled for November 26, where the court is also prepared to hear from Giuliani’s girlfriend Maria Ryan and his assistant Ted Goodman as to why they failed to respond to subpoenas served back in August.
If there’s one thing that could make this situation more of a clusterfuck, it would be Rudy representing himself pro se. And, PS, Caruso and Labkowski are his primary counsel on the appeal of the underlying judgment to the DC Circuit.
Freeman v. Giuliani [Docket via Court Listener]
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.