Rudy
Giuliani
goes
through
lawyers
like
he
goes
through
wives
—
quickly,
and
leaving
a
trail
of
resentment
and
unpaid
bills
in
his
wake.
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
is
currently
in
multiple
federal
and
state
courts
defending
his
honor,
along
with
whatever
is
left
of
his
assets.
And
he
might
soon
be
doing
it
pro
se,
at
least
in
New
York
where
he
faces
a
collection
action
on
the
$148
million
defamation
judgment
he
owes
to
former
Georgia
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.
Giuliani
has
already
endeared
himself
to
Judge
Lewis
Liman
by
failing
to
respond
to
court
ordered
discovery,
stripping
his
Manhattan
apartment
of
its
contents
before
abandoning
it
to
the
plaintiffs,
and
arriving
at
an
election
party
in
the
Mercedes
he’d
been
explicitly
ordered
to
hand
over.
On
Wednesday,
Rudy’s
attorneys
Ken
Caruso
and
David
Labkowski
requested
permission
to
file
“two
sealed
ex
parte
documents”
to
protect
“confidential
information”
they
described
as
“ancillary”
to
the
court’s
judicial
authority.
Judge
Liman
promptly
rejected
the
request,
noting
the
presumption
of
public
access
to
court
documents.
“Although
the
presumption
is
not
strong,
no
countervailing
factors
justify
the
sealing
of
information
regarding
the
identity
and
role
of
the
declarant,
the
relief
sought,
the
grounds
for
the
motion,
and
the
posture
of
the
matters
discussed,”
he
wrote.
But
he
did
allow
for
a
partial
redaction
of
three
paragraphs
containing
privileged
information
in
Caruso’s
declaration.
(Although,
as
former
federal
prosecutor
Ken
White
notes,
attorneys
have
an
obligation
to
protect
client
confidences,
even
in ex
parte
communications
with
the
court.)
In
any
event,
Caruso
and
Labkowski’s
plea
to
be
cut
loose
is
now
largely
visible
on
the
public
docket.
And,
hold
on
to
your
hats,
kids,
but
it
turns
out
Rudy
is
kind
of
a
terrible
client!
The
grounds
for
this
motion
arise
under
Professional
Rule
1.16(c)(4),
(6)
and
(7),
which
provide:a
lawyer
may
withdraw
from
representing
a
client
when:
.
.
.
(4)
the
client
insists
upon
taking
action
with
which
the
lawyer
has
a
fundamental
disagreement;
.
.
.
(6)
the
client
insists
upon
presenting
a
claim
or
defense
that
is
not
warranted
under
existing
law
and
cannot
be
supported
by
good
faith
argument
for
an
extension,
modification,
or
reversal
of
existing
law;
[or]
.
.
.
(7)
the
client
fails
to
cooperate
in
the
representation
or
otherwise
renders
the
representation
unreasonably
difficult
for
the
lawyer
to
carry
out
employment
effectively[.]
You
mean
a
guy
who
got
himself
a
default
judgment
after
completely
failing
to
comply
with
discovery,
and
then
got
himself
kicked
out
of
bankruptcy
for
same,
and
is
currently
claiming
that
he
definitely
resides
in
Florida
for
the
purpose
of
the
homestead
exception,
unless
he
loses,
in
which
case
he definitely
resides
in
New
York
—
that
guy
wants
his
lawyers
to
do
something
that
isn’t
100
percent
on
the
up
and
up?
The
devil
you
say!
Judge
Liman
has
given
Rudy
until
Monday
to
respond.
And
just
in
case
the
former
head
of
SDNY
(late
of the
bar,
although
not
of
a
bar)
is
confused,
the
court
specifies
that
his
response
should
be
submitted
directly
to
chambers,
cc-ing
Caruso
and
Labkowski,
but
not
“any
other
party.”
A
hearing
on
the
matter
is
scheduled
for
November
26,
where
the
court
is
also
prepared
to
hear
from
Giuliani’s
girlfriend
Maria
Ryan
and
his
assistant
Ted
Goodman
as
to
why
they
failed
to
respond
to
subpoenas
served
back
in
August.
If
there’s
one
thing
that
could
make
this
situation
more
of
a
clusterfuck,
it
would
be
Rudy
representing
himself
pro
se.
And,
PS,
Caruso
and
Labkowski
are
his
primary
counsel
on
the
appeal
of
the
underlying
judgment
to
the
DC
Circuit.
Freeman
v.
Giuliani [Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.