Alina Habba's Move Against Judge 'Self-Defeating'—Legal Analyst

Donald Trump lawyer Alina Habba's complaint of a possible conflict of interest between the judge overseeing the E. Jean Carroll defamation civil trial and one of the former Elle columnist's lawyers has been shot down by a legal expert.

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig accused the motion filed by Habba at a federal court in Manhattan on Monday of being "bogus" and "self-defeating." Habba has been contacted for comment via email.

In her filings, Habba accused Lewis Kaplan and Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan, no relation, of failing to declare a possible conflict of interest after they both worked at law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in the early 1990s, before Judge Kaplan was appointed to the federal bench in 1994. Roberta Kaplan has been contacted for comment via email.

The motion was filed after a New York jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in compensatory damages and punitive retribution on January 26 following a civil trial. The writer accused Trump of defaming her while denying that he sexually assaulted her at a Bergdorf Goodman store in New York in the 1990s.

Speaking to CNN, Honig criticized the motion filed by Habba, suggesting it does not amount to a conflict of interest which would have affected the outcome of the civil trial.

"This is a bogus motion by the Trump team. There's nothing there," Honig said.

"Every judge in that courthouse knows, socializes with, has worked with, sometimes maybe mentored, dozens, hundreds of attorneys in this city. I used to practice in that courthouse in front of judges who used to be my colleagues, my supervisors. If anything, they were tougher on me as a result of it. That is not enough for a conflict of interest," Honig said.

"It's self-defeating because Trump's team cites this rule of ethics that says, 'Well, it could be a conflict of interest if the judge worked with the attorney on this matter or while the attorney was working on this matter.' The relationship they're talking about was a law firm, professional relationship that goes back 30 years. Judge Kaplan's been on the bench for 30 years. They have their appeal issues. This ain't one of them."

In her motion, Habba cited a recent New York Post article which quoted an unnamed source suggesting Roberta Kaplan had considered Judge Kaplan her "mentor" at the law firm.

Habba also claimed that the judge was "overtly hostile" to Trump's legal team during the civil trial, and displayed "preferential treatment" towards Carroll's counsel.

Judge Kaplan ruled in September 2023 that Trump had defamed Carroll with his 2019 comments denying the assault took place. The decision meant the proceedings in New York were to determine the size of the penalty against the former president.

Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia attorney and defamation expert, dismissed Habba's attempt to claim there was a conflict of interest between the Kaplans during the civil trial.

"Judge Kaplan would have a real conflict of interest if E. Jean Carroll was suing Donald Trump in 1992, and then the lawsuit languished for 32 years, and one of the original lawyers who filed that suit was still with the firm," Fleischmann posted on X, formerly Twitter.

"Also, if you didn't object when you found out that the other attorney was the judge's former law clerk, you waived the issue."

In a statement, Trump described the $83.3 million defamation penalty as "absolutely ridiculous" and will appeal the decision.