The Judge Seems Unimpressed
If Judge Preska's sarcasm is any indication, the Dershowitz team should be sweating.
September 25, 2019 at 03:12 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
News alert! Alan Dershowitz and Boies Schiller Flexner are in agreement on a vital issue: They both think U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York is awesome!
"She was extraordinarily well-prepared and asked the right questions," praised Dershowitz when I asked him about his hearing before Preska on Tuesday, where his lawyers argued that Boies Schiller be disqualified from representing Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged victims, in her defamation case against him.
"She's intelligent, well-prepared and paid careful attention," lauded Sigrid McCawley, the Boies Schiller partner who's representing at least six of Epstein's alleged victims, when I met with her after the hearing.
Are both sides saying such nice things about the judge because they want to be in her good graces? Undoubtedly.
But speaking as an observer, I have to tell you I was also quite taken by Preska. She's sassy, sharp and funny. In short, she's got that don't-waste-my-time New York style that all judges should have.
Enough about my latest girl-crush, though. Here's what you really want to know: Who scored points at the hearing? If Preska's deployment of sarcasm is any indication, I'd say that the Dershowitz team should be sweating. The judge asked pointed questions to both sides but I thought she was a lot more skeptical of the arguments that Dershowitz's legal team was putting forward.
A number of times, Preska said to Dershowitz's lawyers, Howard Cooper and Imran Ansari, about their arguments, "I don't get it." For instance, Preska asked why Dershowitz failed to raise the conflict issue about Boies Schiller's representation of Giuffre in previous litigations related to the Epstein matter, though the professor made noises about doing so. (Dershowitz claims that Boies Schiller has a conflict because its partner Carlos Sires had offered to represent him after Giuffre accused the professor of sexual abuse, and that he had sent the firm confidential information as a result.)
When Dershowitz's lawyer Ansari argued that he's now raising the conflict issue because he's being directly sued for defamation, Preska was unimpressed and shot back, "What difference should that make?"
Nor was she impressed by Ansari's suggestion that Boies Schiller used dirty tactics. "Why are you telling me this?" Preska asked. "I don't care."
And she seemed even more unconvinced that Dershowitz had established a client/lawyer relationship with Boies Schiller that would merit the firm's disqualification. She noted that when told by Sires that the firm could not represent him, Dershowitz replied in an email: "Darn. I was really hoping that you could come on board."
Preska hammered away at that response.
"It's the subjunctive," she said. "He's not writing back and saying, 'Holy Moly, you said you'd represent me.' He's saying, 'I was hoping you could do it.'"
At that point, Ansari looked stumped. He reminded me of myself as a law student during moot court. Scared. There are lots of other moments when Preska seemed to diss Dershowitz's lawyers' arguments, but why dwell on them? (His other lawyer Cooper didn't seem to get clobbered as badly as Ansari.)
Which brings up some other curious scenes during the proceedings: The multiple times that Dershowitz impatiently nudged his lawyers with notes and comments while they were speaking to the court, as if he wanted to jump up and take over his own defense. Could it be that he was angry with his lawyers and thought he could do a better job?
Not at all, Dershowitz told me.
"I love it when clients are interested and pass notes to me during trial," he said. "I'm not second-guessing [my lawyers]. I happen to know the case better than anyone else."
So did he think that the judge was a lot tougher on his team and that her ruling could go against him? Nope. "I learned a long time ago not to speculate."
Coming from one of the lawyers on the O.J. Simpson defense team, the professor has a point.
Twitter: @lawcareerist
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 AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
Trending Stories
- 1State Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
- 2The Corporate Transparency Act: One Year Later With Deadline Looming
- 3Getting Cameras in Federal Courts Will Take More than Logic
- 4Emerson Electric Opens Wallet to Reward New CLO for Fast Start
- 5Kirkland Hires Real Estate Finance Partners in New York
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