A lawyer representing former President Donald Trump has raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the recent defamation trial filed by E. Jean Carroll. The trial resulted in an $83.3 million award for Carroll, who accused Trump of defamation stemming from his denials of raping her in the mid-1990s.
In a letter filed in federal court in Manhattan, attorney Alina Habba pointed to a January 27 New York Post article that highlighted a purported prior working relationship between Judge Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. The two legal professionals worked together at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in the early 1990s, before Judge Kaplan’s appointment to the federal bench in 1994. The article quoted an unnamed former partner at the firm, describing Judge Kaplan as a mentor to Roberta Kaplan.
Habba argued that this potential conflict of interest could warrant overturning the $83.3 million verdict and may justify a new trial on liability and damages. The letter also criticized the judge’s perceived “overtly hostile” treatment of Trump’s side and “preferential” treatment of Carroll’s side during the trial.
Trump, who plans to appeal the recent verdict, faced allegations from Carroll regarding an incident at Bergdorf Goodman in June 2019. The $83.3 million award included $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages.
The letter referred to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which states that judges should disqualify themselves from cases where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, especially when a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served as a lawyer concerning the matter.
Judge Kaplan’s chambers did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and representatives for Carroll, Roberta Kaplan, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison also did not provide immediate responses. Despite the concerns raised in the letter, it remains to be seen how the court will address these potential conflicts and their impact on the defamation verdict.
