It appears that porn star Stormy Daniels has dropped Michael Avenatti as her lawyer:

ADVERTISEMENT

I have retained Clark Brewster as my personal lawyer and have asked him and his firm to review all legal matters involving me. Upon completion of Mr. Brewster's review and further consultation with me, I anticipate Mr. Brewster will serve as my primary counsel on all legal issues

— Stormy Daniels (@StormyDaniels) March 12, 2019

Earlier this morning we told you how Avenatti could be in big trouble over his recent bankruptcy declaration for his old firm:

OOH BOY: Michael Avenatti's bankruptcy filing could lead to much bigger problems for the celebrity attorney https://t.co/AEJoNKem66

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 12, 2019

But about 10 minutes after Stormy tweeted her announcement, Avenatti says he dropped her as a client on February 19:

Please see below statement relating to our representation of Stormy Daniels. pic.twitter.com/RgXd4DXf4X

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) March 12, 2019

More here on Avenatti’s major potential problems from trial attorney Owen Barcala:

Well, the receiver of Michael Avenatti's bankrupt law firm has appeared in the *second* bankruptcy action filed by Avenatti on March 7—he filed a joinder in the creditor's emergency motion to dismiss https://t.co/Dm10S1hXjj

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

The joinder motion makes it beyond clear that Avenatti did not have authority to file the petition. Worse, the receiver's affidavit says he expressly told Avenatti that he did not have that authority pic.twitter.com/1Miygru4Or

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

ADVERTISEMENT

The receiver believes the second bankruptcy was clearly filed to delay the deposition exam of Avenatti, which was scheduled for March 8, the day after Avenatti filed the petition

Receiver calls it "an archetypical bad faith bankruptcy filing" pic.twitter.com/AdKMIG6MTN

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

He points out 9th Cir precedent holding that an unauthorized bk petition is "null and void" and must be dismissed

The same case found a petition filed by a CEO over objection of a receiver was "fraudulently filed" pic.twitter.com/kHt8ELPYZP

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

I should point out that the receiver here is a neutral party. He doesn't (shouldn't) have an interest in the outcome of the bankruptcy. If you hesitated to take the creditor's word that the second petition wasn't authorized b/c the creditor is biased, that doesn't apply here

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

My own view (from the exhibits to the creditor's emergency motion to dismiss) is that it's obvious Avenatti didn't have authority to file. The first bankruptcy court entered an order saying the receiver has "the sole authority regarding whether to file a petition for bankruptcy" pic.twitter.com/Uw9afePb0B

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

ADVERTISEMENT

Avenatti consented to entry of this order, so he couldn't have been unaware (unless he's such a bad attorney he doesn't read orders he consents to?)

So it definitely looks like the filing was in violation of a federal court order pic.twitter.com/V7zXI7oQRo

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

And b/c filing a bankruptcy petition requires a signature attesting under the penalty of perjury that you've been "authorized to file this petition," it also looks like he committed perjury pic.twitter.com/MvT94kaCZY

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

It's not like there was a mistake here—the receiver went over the order w/ him and told him he was not authorized

And, uh, look at the fine print at the top—"Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime." Fines up to $500k, prison time up to 20 yrs. Yeesh.

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

For Avenatti's part (from a motion to continue the emergency hearing), his argument seems to be that the court order (and his consent) are void b/c they were executed w/in 90 days of the second bankruptcy filing

That argument is, to pick a phrase at random, weak af pic.twitter.com/sFwuxDXJqr

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

ADVERTISEMENT

The bankruptcy code does allow claw back or rescission of transfers affecting debtor property w/in 90 days, but you'd have to be clinically insane (or hiding millions of dollars…) to think that applies to federal court orders pic.twitter.com/xy5V6VTjA1

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

And, again, binding case law in the 9th Cir says a fraudulently filed petition is "null and void"—it can have no effect on Avenatti's prior agreement or the court order pic.twitter.com/BSGXSqNaQA

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

The question remains, why would Avenatti do something in such transparent bad faith, risking enormous penalties for bankruptcy fraud? Just to delay his depo testimony?

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

Fun fact I learned recently—Avenatti's *first* bankruptcy was also filed on the eve of him giving testimony to the same creditor on the same debt

It was filed by an private investigator who worked with Avenatti. The judge said it had the "stench of impropriety" pic.twitter.com/GtCwsYE8I0

— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) March 11, 2019

***