Michael Avenatti

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46705
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1701

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

I believe Avenatti has breached the duty of confidentiality he has with Stormy Daniels* (and which survives the end of the attorney-client relationship).

When an attorney seeks to be paid his or her fee, the attorney is allowed to breach certain aspects of the attorney-client relationship to advance the claim. But only so much as is necessary and no more. That being the case, what to make of this, as reported by the Daily Beast:
In his new legal action, Avenatti says he decided to cut ties after “Daniels became increasingly difficult, uncooperative, erratic, and unpredictable, and began falsely accusing people closely aligned with her (but not Mr. Avenatti) of theft without any legitimate basis.”

“Ms. Daniels’ false accusations in some instances were targeted at friends of 20 years and her private security detail,” the filing alleges.

The letter states the firm also decided to sever ties after “prior false accusations (which you chose to make public before communicating them to me—I found out from a reporter)” and Daniels’ “general lack of appreciation for our work and the thousands of hours we have devoted to you, which we have largely done for free at great expense to me and my firm.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-a ... ref=scroll

How is any of that relevant to his fee claim?
__________________________________________________________
* Business & Professions Code §6068: “It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: . . . (e) (1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.”

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10551
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1702

Post by Mikedunford »

Yeah, he's way over the line. Question is whether it will make any difference given where that sits in relation to his 986,321 other pending legal and professional responsibility issues.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30548
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1703

Post by Foggy »

If he worked thousands of hours for free, why would she owe him a nickel?

I used to think that if you told your client "I won't charge you for this" that you couldn't decide later that your client is a big poopy head and you're going to charge her for the work you did after all.

If you tell her you're going to charge $0.25 an hour and she says something mean about you after you did 150 hours of work, can you edit the retainer agreement to charge $500 an hour?

I'd like to see the retainer agreement she signed, if'n there is one. :smoking:
For more information, read it again. || When science is outlawed, only outlaws will have science.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13927
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1704

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Why is it that I suspect his claim of
“Daniels became increasingly difficult, uncooperative, erratic, and unpredictable, and began falsely accusing people closely aligned with her (but not Mr. Avenatti) of theft without any legitimate basis.”
translates to her figuring out he wasn't really doing much if anything for her, except costing her money she didn't have and complaining about it?

As to the question asked, IANAL, but it sure sounds like it to me. Did she actually fire him or did he quit?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1705

Post by Res Ipsa »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:01 pm
Did she actually fire him or did he quit?
She made the first public statement about it, but who knows. My best guess would be that she fired him. I can't see much of a reason for him to fire her, since she was his meal ticket.

Image
Thanks pal.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13927
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1706

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Adults of that age, or any age for that matter, should not wear whatever that is.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 8568
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1707

Post by neonzx »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:44 am
Adults of that age, or any age for that matter, should not wear whatever that is.
80s, perhaps?

Hammer Time (U Can't Touch This)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13927
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1708

Post by Notorial Dissent »

They should both be wearing Fezs with propellers on top, and they would still look like a bad 60's Playboy sketch.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1709

Post by Res Ipsa »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:44 am
Adults of that age, or any age for that matter, should not wear whatever that is.
Image
Thanks pal.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1710

Post by Res Ipsa »

Catching up on events in Ohio, where Daniels won her case relating to the strip club bust, there's a conga line of claimants to that award.....


https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/84 ... der_by=asc



Oct 3, 2019
NOTICE by Interested Parties Michael Avenatti, Avenatti & Associates, APC of Lien for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Warren, Thomas) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

Oct 18, 2019
MOTION to Strike 40 Notice (Other) of Lien by Plaintiff Stephanie Clifford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Affidavit of S.C., # 2 Exhibit B - Affidavit of C.M.) (Fortney, Guy) (Entered: 10/18/2019)

Nov 6, 2019
NOTICE of Appearance by Dan Jay Binau and Emily J. Jackson for Interested Party Donald J. Trump (Binau, Dan) Modified text on 11/7/2019 (ew). (Entered: 11/06/2019)

Nov 6, 2019
NOTICE of Registration of Foreign Judgment by Interested Party Donald J. Trump (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Binau, Dan) Modified text on 11/7/2019 (ew). (Entered: 11/06/2019)

Nov 7, 2019
NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas David Warren for Interested Party Michael Avenatti (Warren, Thomas) (Entered: 11/07/2019)

Nov 7, 2019
NOTICE by Interested Party Michael Avenatti re 40 Notice (Other) of Pending Arbitration Resulting in the Removal of Lien (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Notice of Pending Arbitration) (Warren, Thomas) (Entered: 11/07/2019)


The notice of arbitration has some entertaining moments:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 7.45.1.pdf

First, he complains that she only paid $100...
Screen Shot 2019-11-09 at 11.19.35 AM.png
Then, he attaches his fee agreement:

Screen Shot 2019-11-09 at 11.20.53 AM.png

He's going to show us stodgy, envious old-fashioned attorneys what's what, any day now. :thumbs:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Thanks pal.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46705
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1711

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

An agreement to agree. And not only that, but an agreement to agree to a new deal with an existing client. The perilous ethical issues (in California) are daunting. But since an agreement to agree is not enforceable, any decision maker would rule in favor of the client no matter the ethical issues.

Avenatti is truly a crappy lawyer. In addition to the questionable ethics and honesty issues.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46705
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1712

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

The SDNY USA has filed a superseding indictment, dropping 2 conspiracy charges but adding a new fraud charge. Avenatti, of course, crows that the case is falling apart. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/michael ... 08186.html

The case is falling apart? I doubt it, but live your fantasy as long as you can Michael. You'll be in prison soon enough.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7751
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1713

Post by Sam the Centipede »

:-D Admit it, Stern, you're not really a fan of Mr. Avenatti, are you? :-D

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46705
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1714

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Guilty as charged.

User avatar
LtDansLegs
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1715

Post by LtDansLegs »

:-D :-D
.
screencapture-twitter-Popehat-status-1194774905339822080-2019-11-14-14_23_09.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12898
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1716

Post by Whatever4 »

"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 18088
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1717

Post by Suranis »

I guess blocking all the people who know who you are isn't a great strategy for continual relevance, huh?
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10551
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1718

Post by Mikedunford »

Screen Shot 2019-11-15 at 11.40.23 AM.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 8720
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1719

Post by pipistrelle »

This belief that you're significant only if you get attention even for negative or antisocial behavior is a huge sign of decline, IMO.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1720

Post by Northland10 »

Suranis wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:53 am
I guess blocking all the people who know who you are isn't a great strategy for continual relevance, huh?
It was a proud day for me when nobodyvenatti blocked me.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1721

Post by Res Ipsa »

This is brilliant:

Image
Thanks pal.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1722

Post by Res Ipsa »

pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:18 am
This belief that you're significant only if you get attention even for negative or antisocial behavior is a huge sign of decline, IMO.
Image
Thanks pal.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46705
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1723

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Avenatti is shameless. He apparently only lives for the high he gets from attention.

Somerset
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1724

Post by Somerset »

pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:18 am
This belief that you're significant only if you get attention even for negative or antisocial behavior is a huge sign of decline, IMO.
If that were true, the OSG wouldn't be president

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 8720
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#1725

Post by pipistrelle »

Somerset wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:49 pm
pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:18 am
This belief that you're significant only if you get attention even for negative or antisocial behavior is a huge sign of decline, IMO.
If that were true, the OSG wouldn't be president
It’s why he’s president. This has become our degraded standard. ME ME ME ALL ME.

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”