115
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Habba had complained after a report alleged that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan was a "mentor" to Carroll's lawyer 30 years ago. Carroll's lawyer called the claim "utterly baseless.”

Former President Donald Trump's attorney Alina Habba on Tuesday backed off of a conflict of interest claim against the judge who presided over the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial after Carroll's lawyer threatened to pursue sanctions.

Habba on Monday filed a letter with the court citing a New York Post story which said that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll attorney Roberta Kaplan, who are not related, had worked at the major law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in the 1990s. An unidentified former partner at the firm, which employs around 1,000 lawyers, told the Post that Lewis Kaplan had been “like her mentor."

...

In a letter on Tuesday, Roberta Kaplan called it "utterly baseless" to suggest there had been such a relationship, and said she might seek sanctions if Habba kept making "false accusations of impropriety."

Habba indicated that Kaplan's letter appeared to settle the matter.

"The point of my January 29 letter was to verify whether the information contained in the New York Post article is accurate," she wrote. "Since Ms. Kaplan has now denied that there was ever a mentor-mentee relationship between herself and Your Honor, this issue has seemingly been resolved."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The article included a quote from Roberta Kaplan's spokesman Zak Sawyer, who said while they'd worked at the same large law firm, they “overlapped for less than two years in the early 1990s."

In her letter on Monday, Habba said, "If Your Honor truly worked with Ms. Kaplan in any capacity—especially if there was a mentor/mentee relationship—that fact should have been disclosed before any case involving these parties was permitted to proceed forward."

Roberta Kaplan called the allegation part of the Trump team's scheme to discredit the judicial system and suggested that she might seek sanctions against Habba.

"While Ms. Habba ends her letter by characterizing this as a 'troubling matter,' what is actually troubling is both the substance and timing of her false accusations of impropriety," she wrote.

While that strategy has now moved into its post-verdict phase, it is now time for Defendant’s false and vexatious claims of bias or impropriety to stop."

"The purpose of the letter was simply to inquire as to whether there is any merit to a recently published New York Post story which reported on the alleged existence of such a relationship," she wrote.


The original article contains 795 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
115 points (96.7% liked)

politics

18881 readers
4041 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS