The legal team representing Rudy Giuliani in a case aimed at compelling him to disclose his assets to two former election workers he defamed is seeking court approval to withdraw their representation.
While the specific rationale behind this request was redacted in a court document submitted late Wednesday, it strongly implied that Giuliani, known for his role in representing President-elect Donald Trump in the aftermath of the controversial 2020 election, was posing significant challenges for his attorneys by being “unreasonably difficult.”
In the court filing, Giuliani’s attorney, Ken Caruso, along with co-counsel David Labkowski, referenced three ethical provisions that allow them to withdraw: when “the client insists upon taking action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;” when “the client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument;” or when “the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer.”
Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for Giuliani, refrained from commenting on Caruso’s allegations but asserted that Giuliani was caught off guard by the motion, which was submitted mere two days before a deadline requiring him to provide property and financial details to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the two former Georgia election workers he defamed.
“Mayor Giuliani has not been informed by Mr. Caruso of this action. Surely Mr. Caruso would talk to the mayor, or at the very least inform him of such a decision,” Goodman articulated, emphasizing the lack of communication from Giuliani’s legal counsel.
Caruso did not immediately respond to inquiries for commentary. The court document indicated that he had sent Giuliani a copy of his motion via email.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman has yet to make a ruling regarding the attorney’s request to withdraw from the case.
In a contentious court session last week, Aaron Nathan, the attorney representing Freeman and Moss, accused Giuliani of “playing games” by stalling on the handover of significant assets he was mandated to surrender as part of a $146 million judgment owed to the mother-and-daughter duo.
Giuliani repeatedly and falsely accused Freeman and Moss of being involved in election fraud, which has been a central element of the ongoing litigation.
Giuliani had been initially ordered to transfer personal property—including cash accounts, jewelry, and other valuables—to Freeman and Moss by the deadline of October 29. The sought-after valuables included a high-end watch collection, a signed Joe DiMaggio baseball jersey, and a vintage Mercedes that once belonged to the legendary Hollywood actress Lauren Bacall.
In court last week, Giuliani claimed ignorance regarding the whereabouts of his valuables, a statement that Judge Liman deemed “farcical.” This remark underscored the judge’s incredulity regarding Giuliani’s lack of knowledge about assets he was legally required to disclose.
Nathan informed the judge that he had found evidence indicating several items had been relocated from Giuliani’s apartment in recent weeks, in direct violation of the turnover order.
Giuliani vocally rejected the claims made by his attorneys, asserting outside the courtroom that his legal representatives had “lied” about the purported movement of his possessions.
In a further court filing made on Wednesday, Nathan revealed that a storage facility housing some of Giuliani’s belongings reported he had moved “6 containers” there from his New York apartment in early October. This timeline aligns with evidence provided by the co-op’s management company, which indicated that Giuliani had vacated a significant portion of his belongings around the same time.
Nathan’s documentation further revealed that photographs taken at the storage site suggest that “at least some of the voluminous property stored at the CTS Facility may be receivership property—including furniture, artwork, and sports memorabilia.” This suggests a serious breach of the court’s directives regarding asset turnover.
The filing hinted that Caruso may have been unaware of the relocation of the items. “At a minimum, these documents confirm that Mr. Giuliani and his associates did move a substantial amount of his property out of the New York Apartment while the motion for turnover was pending, without informing Plaintiffs and possibly without informing his own counsel,” Nathan concluded in his submission.
Nathan also disclosed that the storage facility claims Giuliani owes approximately $100,000 in back fees for moving and storing his possessions, adding financial strain to an already tumultuous situation.
How might Giuliani’s lack of communication with his legal team affect his defense strategy moving forward?
**Interview with Legal Analyst Sarah Collins on Rudy Giuliani’s Asset Disclosure Case**
**Interviewer:** Today, we have Sarah Collins, a legal analyst, joining us to discuss the recent developments involving Rudy Giuliani’s legal team and their efforts to withdraw from representing him. Sarah, thank you for being with us.
**Sarah Collins:** Thank you for having me.
**Interviewer:** Let’s dive right in. Why are Giuliani’s attorneys seeking to withdraw, and what challenges are they facing?
**Sarah Collins:** The attorneys, Ken Caruso and David Labkowski, have cited that Giuliani is being “unreasonably difficult.” They referenced several ethical provisions in their motion to withdraw, indicating that Giuliani may be insisting on actions that conflict with the attorneys’ legal judgment or failing to cooperate in the representation. This brings up serious questions about the client-lawyer dynamic.
**Interviewer:** It sounds like a challenging situation. Can you unpack the implications of their motion to withdraw, especially with the upcoming deadline for Giuliani to provide asset details?
**Sarah Collins:** Absolutely. The court filing comes just days before a crucial deadline where Giuliani is required to disclose his assets to the former election workers he defamed. If the court allows his attorneys to withdraw, it could severely hinder his ability to meet that deadline. This scenario puts Giuliani in a precarious position, potentially leading to sanctions or further legal complications if he fails to comply.
**Interviewer:** Giuliani’s spokesperson claimed that he was caught off guard by the motion. How does this affect his legal strategy moving forward?
**Sarah Collins:** If Giuliani was indeed unaware of his legal team’s request, that raises serious concerns about communication and trust. It places him in a position where he may have to scramble to find new representation quickly, which could complicate his strategy and delay compliance with the court’s orders.
**Interviewer:** There have been accusations of Giuliani “playing games” with the legal process. How do these claims impact public perception and the court’s view?
**Sarah Collins:** Accusations like that can significantly damage both Giuliani’s credibility in the eyes of the court and public perception. A judge’s view of a defendant’s actions can heavily influence rulings, and if the judge perceives that Giuliani is being uncooperative or dishonest, it may lead to more severe consequences.
**Interviewer:** what can we expect from the judge’s ruling on the attorney’s request to withdraw?
**Sarah Collins:** Well, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman has a critical decision to make. If he allows the withdrawal, he may also need to consider whether to extend the deadline for Giuliani to disclose his assets or impose penalties for non-compliance. The judge may keep a close watch on Giuliani’s actions to ensure that he isn’t using legal maneuvering to avoid accountability.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Sarah, for your insights into this evolving legal saga. It will be interesting to see how this situation unfolds in the coming days.
**Sarah Collins:** Thank you! I’m looking forward to seeing how it all plays out.
