As Donald Trump’s four criminal cases move toward potential trials, we were just reminded the former president is dogged by civil matters as well.
This latest reminder came thanks to a request for sanctions against Trump, his oldest sons and their lawyers, by New York Attorney General Letitia James in her $250 million civil fraud case that’s set for trial on Oct. 2 (which Trump wants to delay).
Why sanctions? James wants them for what she called “frivolous conduct” by the civil defendants and their counsel in continuing to make claims that were already rejected in court.
As a reminder, the civil suit alleged Trump, his children and other Trump Organization leaders used false financial information with lenders, insurance companies and others for Trump’s personal and business benefit. On top of financial penalties, James wants to bar the defendants from serving as officers of New York companies and to keep Trump from state real estate deals for five years.
Defending against the multimillion-dollar suit, Trump previously argued, among other things, that the state AG doesn’t have standing or capacity to bring the case because, the defense argued, there wasn’t harm to the public. That argument has been rejected during this state court litigation, with the judge already issuing warnings about the defense arguments’ frivolity.
Yet, James noted in her sanctions motion Tuesday that Trump keeps raising these rejected arguments. As the state put it:
Despite the Court’s prior rulings and admonition, Defendants exhume their previously-rejected standing, capacity, disclaimer, and disgorgement arguments in support of their motion and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.
So, what does it take for conduct to be legally frivolous? There are three options, James observed in her filing. Conduct is frivolous if:
In making this determination, courts look at whether the conduct continued despite it being brought to the party’s attention. That happened here, James wrote, recalling the court already deemed defense arguments “borderline frivolous.” (A Trump lawyer told The Washington Post that “the attorney general’s motion in itself is frivolous.” The lawyer wrote a letter to the AG’s office on Tuesday night to demand the sanctions request be withdrawn, arguing the defense is allowed to make these arguments, the Post reported.) And what’s the state asking for, exactly? It wants a collective total of $10,000 against the defendants and another collective $10,000 against their lawyers. So while the imposition of sanctions — and what, if any, deterrent effect they have — is to be determined, at the very least the motion underscores what the state casts as a lack of sound defenses coming from the Trump camp. Ahead of a potential trial with staggering financial and business implications, that broader point could be more worrying to the defense than these possible sanctions.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
