Miami Lawyer Accused of Offering Witness $200K to Change Testimony in Case Involving Celebrities

A Fort Lauderdale attorney filed a motion in Miami-Dade Circuit Court on Tuesday in which he alleged opposing counsel engaged in witness tampering in litigation stemming from claims of sexual assault against a prominent musician.

Jeffrey A. Neiman, a partner at Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro, represents defendant Tremaine Neverson, also known as Trey Songz. Additional defendants in the matter include Sean Combs, also known as P. Diddy, along with the venue in which the sexual assault allegedly occurred, E11even Nightclub.

Singer Trey Songz performs onstage in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: Kobby Dagan/Shutterstock.com)

Neiman claimed in the court filing that attorney Ariel Mitchell, a solo practitioner based in Miami and who represents the plaintiff, Jauhara Jeffries, told an independent witness to change her testimony to corroborate the plaintiff’s version of events.

In exchange, Mitchell would allegedly pay the witness “between $100,000 and $200,000, depending on the case’s ultimate settlement amount,” according to the motion. Neiman claimed in the motion that the witness denied the offer and could corroborate the defendants’ version of the events.

‘Pathetic Attempt to Shift the Narrative’

But Mitchell said in an interview Tuesday that a previous attorney for the defendants filed a complaint against her with The Florida Bar that contained the same allegations.

The attorney said the bar dismissed the inquiry, and cleared her of wrongdoing in July 2021.

“It’s hard to have a reaction when I know something is a lie,” Mitchell claimed. “All this is really a pathetic attempt to shift the narrative from what Trey Songz has done, and it is something to just try and rattle me.”

But Mitchell said she was unable to send the bar files because they are in her Miami home, and she is currently in Atlanta, Georgia, for work.

The bar stated in an email Tuesday that there is “an open case” against Mitchell. It said its staff is reviewing the complaint against the attorney, and will soon decide what happens next.

Counsel in Crosshairs

Mitchell filed the complaint in December 2021 and alleged that Combs held a New Year’s Eve party at his Miami mansion. And around 4 a.m., Neverson gave the plaintiff and her friends a ride to the E11even Nightclub in Miami.

Jeffries said she was dancing on a couch in the nightclub when Neverson allegedly assaulted her, according to the complaint. She said she “felt fingers being inserted into her vagina, turned around and saw defendant Songz pulling his hand away from her bottom.”

Mitchell seeks a recovery from the defendants on several counts, including civil assault, civil battery, and negligence, according to the complaint. However, the witness plans to testify that contrary to plaintiff’s statements, Neverson did not assault Jeffries and that the witness was offered money to provide false testimony.

Read the motion:

Now, Neiman is asking Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Gina Beovides to dismiss the complaint, and pursue disciplinary action against Mitchell, including sanctions.

Neiman declined to comment.

In the motion, Neiman argued that the alleged attempt at inducing false testimony for use in a judicial proceeding is a grave violation of a lawyer’s duties. In asking the judge to dismiss the case, he cited the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Kozel v. Ostendorf in which the justices instructed lower courts to consider six factors in evaluating whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct.

These six factors include whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate or contumacious rather than an act of neglect or inexperience; whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; whether the attorney offered reasonable justification for noncompliance; and whether the delay created significant problems of judicial administration.

Neiman stated, “In the face of a deliberate, willful scheme to induce fraudulent testimony, and considering the Kozel factors, dismissal is appropriate.”