Giuliani seeks to keep reason his lawyers quit under seal
Former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani speaks to reporters as he leaves his apartment building in New York on Aug. 23, 2023 (AP Photo/Seth Wenig).
Rudy Giuliani is asking a federal judge in New York not to release court documents detailing why his two attorneys suddenly quit while representing him in the receivership case concerning the $148 million he owes to the two Georgia election workers he defamed.
The defamed election workers — Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss — have been in ongoing and often contentious litigation with Giuliani to collect on that judgment.
The filing, from Giuliani’s new attorney, Joseph M. Cammarata, came in response to U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman ordering Giuliani and the plaintiffs in the case to inform the court whether they objected to unsealing the declarations from Giuliani’s former lead attorney, Kenneth Caruso, and former co-counsel, David Labkowski, regarding why they chose to withdraw from representing the former New York City mayor — a move they made without informing their client.
In response, Giuliani argued that Caruso and Labkowski should never have filed their motions to withdraw with the court, but even so, the motions were “rendered moot” once Giuliani, his former attorneys, and Cammarata signed a consent order granting substitution of attorney. The consent order was filed one day after Caruso and Labkowski sought to withdraw from the case, but Liman did not immediately sign the order.
“Instead of the Court signing off on the substitution of counsel form filed on November 15, 2024, on November 26, 2024, the Court instead granted Defendant’s prior counsel Kenneth A. Caruso, Esq. and David Labkowski application to be relieved as counsel,” Cammarata wrote in his response Saturday. “Once the Court was satisfied that I as new counsel would be ready for trial on January 16, 2025, the Court could have and respectfully should have signed the Consent Order Granting Substitution of Attorney, rather than deciding the motion.”
Giuliani further asserted that unsealing his former attorneys’ withdrawal motions would also disclose information that could harm his case, saying “it would serve no purpose and no benefit” to the plaintiffs or the court.
“Any reasons and basis for unsealing the Sealed Documents would likely reveal attorney-client privileged communications between Defendant’s prior counsel and Defendant, and would serve no purpose other than causing harm to the Defendant,” the filing states. “The only reason why Defendant’s prior counsel would have sought to withdraw was due to disagreements with Defendant. Plaintiffs and the public, which would obviously be privy to the documents that Defendant’s prior counsel sought to have private, confidential and sealed, and not disclosed to the entire world, would be able to see the specifics of disagreements between Defendant and his prior counsel.”
Cammarata also emphasized that, prior to Liman’s Friday order, none of the parties had asked for the withdrawal motions to be unsealed.
In the Friday order, Liman cited legal precedent which states that “each passing day where access to court-filed documents is improperly denied ‘may constitute a separate and cognizable infringement of the First Amendment.””
Giuliani has had a rocky relationship with Liman, even going so far as to interrupt the judge during an in-person hearing last month to exclaim, “You are against me!” to Liman.
Following that hearing, Giuliani spoke to reporters outside the courthouse, where he railed against Liman, accusing the jurist of being an “activist Democrat,” Politico reported. Liman was appointed to the court by Donald Trump in 2019.
“Have you figured out what side he’s on? Are you too dumb to see what side he’s on?” Giuliani reportedly asked. “I’ve been a lawyer for 55 years. I can figure out what side he’s on.”
Giuliani reportedly continued the Liman diatribe as he got on the elevator.
“He doesn’t give a damn about the truth. He just gives a damn about being popular,” adding, “This is lawfare with capital letters.”
