Jury in Mark Geragos' malpractice trial finds $100K in damages, but who will pay?
Jurors in Los Angeles delivered a split verdict in a civil trial over Geragos' work with Michael Avenatti in the 2019 meetings with Nike that led to Avenatti's extortion arrest.
A jury in Los Angeles has awarded $100,000 in damages in a malpractice lawsuit against prominent celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos that said he conspired with now-imprisoned lawyer Michael Avenatti at the expense of a client’s legal claims against sports apparel giant Nike.
His lawyer Sean Macias said Geragos is not liable for the damages award because jurors also found he didn’t cause harm.
“Since all claims state Franklin was not harmed and Geragos was not a ‘cause’ in any event, no one is liable,” Macias told me on Thursday.
But plaintiff’s lawyer Trent Copeland said the court “upon motion, can reconcile the verdict. If reconciliation is not possible, the court can order a new trial.”
“What is clear is that the jury found that Mr. Geragos engaged in wrongful conduct by substantially aiding and abetting Avenatti’s illegal conduct. And the jury awarded damages because of that. Courts are always, and for good reason, reluctant to disturb a jury’s verdict,” Copeland told me.
Copeland said Geragos “has spent much of his career mastering the art of spin—but there’s no spinning what this jury found.”
“They awarded $100,000 in damages because they saw clearly that Mr. Geragos owed our client a fiduciary duty and that Mr. Geragos aided and abetted Michael Avenatti in committing wrongdoing — and he did so by providing substantial assistance to Mr. Avenatti. He can’t run from this,” Copeland said in an email.
The $100,000 verdict on Wednesday is below the millions of dollars that Copeland hoped to secure for Gary Franklin, a youth basketball coach in Los Angeles whose claims against Nike led to Avenatti and Geragos meeting with company lawyers in New York City in 2019 and Avenatti ultimately being convicted of three federal felonies.
Franklin sued Geragos for legal malpractice, and he testified he retained Avenatti, not Geragos, because he wanted to come clean about two Nike employees pressuring him to funnel payments to players. He said he didn’t know Avenatti enlisted Geragos to help and added his own demand of $15-$25 million when Nike already was willing to pay Franklin $1.5 million. Franklin never got that much money: Nike settled his case three years later in 2022 for $160,000.
The jury that decided Franklin’s claims this week, however, was instructed by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Steve Cochran that no evidence supports the claim that Nike was willing to pay Franklin $1.5 million.
The jury heard six days of testimony and deliberated about five hours before rejecting fraud and fraudulent concealment claims against Geragos but concluding he provided “knowingly substantial assistance or encouragement” to Avenatti when Avenatti harmed Franklin.
Jurors said Geragos had “actual knowledge” that Avenatti was wronging Franklin, but they concluded his conduct was not a substantial factor in Franklin’s harm. They also concluded Geragos owed Franklin a fiduciary duty, but they said Geragos didn’t breach it.
Jurors also said Geragos was acting as Franklin’s attorney and breached his standard of professional care, but they concluded the breach wasn’t a substantial factor in Franklin’s “ability to fairly negotiate or evaluate a settlement.” They also said he didn’t fail to inform Franklin of legal deadlines, and they also accepted his defense that Franklin’s claims are outside the statute of limitations by finding that Franklin knew or should have known “the facts constituting the alleged legal malpractice” before Oct. 1, 2019.
You can download a PDF of the verdict form here:
The $100,000 awarded was entered as non-economic compensatory damages. It includes no punitive damages because jurors concluded Geragos did not act with malice, oppression or fraud.
In his two days on the witness stand, Geragos testified he was working as a mediator between Nike and Avenatti and wasn’t obligated to do what was best for Franklin. Macias also argued in his closing there was no real offer from Nike to Franklin because the meetings were actually “an FBI sting.”
Geragos also said he would have acted differently if he knew of an email Avenatti wrote that said, “I will make it clear to Nike that if they don’t promptly agree or we don’t come to terms regarding the above, I will seek justice by immediately going to the FBI.”
Geragos testified on Monday, “That’s the definition of extortion” and said he never saw the email.
“I never would have been involved if I had seen this. And if I had been, Mr. Copeland, I would have told him that’s extortion,” he said.
Patrick Maloney, a lawyer in the Los Angeles area who specializes in legal malpractice, testified as a plaintiff’s expert witness that Geragos acted as a lawyer for Franklin in his interactions with Nike and was thus bound by legal ethics that he didn’t follow.
“Rather than focusing on the resolution for the client, they asked for $12 million or more for themselves, which was going to be hidden from the client,” Maloney testified on Tuesday.
Jurors also saw a video deposition in which Avenatti vehemently denied that Geragos was mediating anything.
“No fricking way. No. That never happened, and if he has testified to that and stated that under oath, he is lying. Because that was never his role whatsoever and it is undercut by countless communications,” Avenatti said.
Geragos did not call an expert on legal ethics or professional duties in his defense, which Copeland, a partner at Ellis George LLP, highlighted in his closing argument.
“You have not seen one single witness come in here and get on that witness stand in support of Mr. Geragos. Not one. Not one,” Copeland said. “The only person you heard say anything about Mr. Geragos’ conduct is Mr. Geragos and Mr. Avenatti.”
Copeland reminded jurors of texts between Avenatti and Geragos in which Avenatti said, “I got called on a big case against Nike. This might make a lot of sense together.”
Geragos replied, “Did I mention my relationship with the general counsel is fantastic?”
Avenatti texted, “Yes. Which is why I thought of you.”
“From day one, Mr. Geragos’ relationship with Nike opened the door. It was the key to getting Mr. Franklin into that meeting through his lawyers,” Copeland told the jury.
Copeland told jurors the case “is about whether Mark Geragos represented Gary Franklin’s interest or whether he exploited them.” When Nike officials offered $1.5 million but Avenatti demanded up to $25 million more, he and Geragos “never meaningfully brought [Franklin] into the room.”
“Mr. Franklin wasn’t told that Mr. Geragos and Mr. Avenatti would hold up the settlement of his claims unless and until Nike paid them separately $20 to $25 million to conduct some internal investigation — a job they invented for themselves,” Copeland said. “This demand wasn’t about justice. And the reason they didn’t disclose it to Mr. Franklin is because they know he would have rejected it.”
Copeland said Geragos “lied about being a mediator to cover up his wrongdoing,” while Franklin has been blacklisted from gyms as a youth sports coach and parents doubt whether they should enroll their children in his program.
“This is not just about malpractice. This is betrayal — a betrayal that shattered a man’s reputation, that disrupted his life’s work and cast a shadow that no amounts of money can erase,” Copeland said.
Copeland did not give a rebuttal to Macias’ closing argument because Judge Cochran ruled he ran out of time. Cochran initially gave each side eight hours, then gave Copeland an extra two hours. He declined to allot more time after he halted Copeland’s closing on Tuesday and wouldn’t allow him to give a rebuttal.
“You drove right over the cliff on the time frame not once but twice. I don’t even know how you did that,” Cochran said.
‘He set up a meeting and that’s it’
A federal jury in New York City convicted Avenatti in February 2020 of transmitting extortionate communications in interstate commerce, attempted Hobbs Act extortion and honest-services wire fraud. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and is due to be released on Sept. 8, 2028, after being resentenced last month for his wire fraud convictions in California.
Geragos was not charged with a crime, and he never testified against Avenatti. But after Franklin sued him, and Geragos’ legal malpractice insurer, Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc., moved to rescind his law firm’s policy in a March 2021 lawsuit that said Geragos concealed “the Avenatti situation” and his role in it. Both sides agreed to dismiss the case in 2022 and did not disclose a settlement, but the company didn’t pay for Geragos’ defense: Macias said in trial that Geragos asked him for help about a month ago.
Macias introduced Avenatti to Stormy Daniels in 2018, and he testified in Avenatti’s New York federal wire fraud trial about getting $250,000 from Geragos to give to Avenatti during the height of Avenatti’s legal problems in 2019.
Macias told jurors in Geragos’ trial on Wednesday that Franklin appears to be a nice person who has no legitimate legal claims against Geragos. He asked if jurors think Geragos would “bow out from Nike” if he believed there was a multimillion dollar deal on the table.
“He knew that was nonsense,” Macias said. Macias described Geragos’ role in Avenatti’s Nike negotiations as, “He set up a meeting and that’s it.”
“I put you guys together. I sat in the room, I drank a Diet Coke, and I was silent. I get sued. Thanks,” Macias said.
Macias also defended himself after Copeland said he made unfulfilled promises to the jury in his opening statement.
“Everything that I said, you know, I might have said it with a little flair, put a little adjective to it, but everything I said, I backed up, alright? All my checks cashed. I own it. That’s my reputation. I’m Sean Macias, and that’s what I stand by every day. Twice on Sunday,” Macias said.
‘Something to that effect’: Geragos testifies
Judge Cochran was a lawyer for celebrities, including Michael Jackson, before he took the bench, and he interjected when Copeland questioned Geragos about his defense that he was mediating between Avenatti and Nike.
“You would agree that parties can’t have a mediation if they don’t first know that they’re in mediation. Would you agree to that?” Copeland asked on Monday.
“Well, if you’re talking about this case, I texted ‘confidential mediated discussion,’ which the jury saw on Friday,” Geragos answered.
Copeland pressed Geragos as Judge Cochran interjected, “So can you be in a mediation if you don’t know that you’re in one?”
“Probably not,” the judge added after Copeland said, “That’s the question.”
“Reminds me of hearing a tree fall in the forest somewhere,” Geragos said.
Copeland asked, “Can I get an answer from the witness?” but Judge Cochran said, “You’re not catching my drift. We have covered this,” so Copeland moved into questions about a text Geragos sent Casey Kaplan, Nike’s general counsel in 2019, that mentioned confidential mediation. Geragos confirmed that Kaplan used the word ‘settlement,’ which he changed to ‘mediation.’
“You don’t even know if Nike thought that meant you were in mediation?” Copeland asked.
“I wouldn’t agree with that at all,” Geragos answered.
Copeland reminded Geragos of what Avenatti told him in a text, “Our retention will be confidential” and asked him about a video-recorded meeting between him and Avenatti and Nike officials and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP lawyers on March 21, 2019.
Copeland pressed Geragos to confirm key parts of the meeting, including when Nike officials asked who would be doing the work and Avenatti answered, “Mark, me and our staff.”
“Yeah, something to that effect,” Geragos answered on Monday.
Geragos also answered “something to that effect” when Copeland asked if he told Nike officials he and Avenatti would hire subcontractors for the internal investigation.
“You also don’t deny that you sat there in that meeting silently, as Mr. Avenatti said, ‘$12 million is deemed earned and paid.’ You don’t deny that, do you?” Copeland asked.
“That he said that?” Geragos said.
“Correct,” Copeland said.
“I think he said something to that effect, correct,” Geragos answered.
“And you sat there quietly — silently — true?” Copeland asked.
“If you’re asking if I said something, I don’t think that I did,” Geragos answered.
Geragos also said “I don’t deny that” when Copeland asked about him telling Nike officials that through “the internal investigation, you were going to be getting to the bottom of it.”
Copeland asked about the specific negotiations with Nike officials, including Nike’s offer to settle Franklin’s lawsuit for $1.5 million but Avenatti’s insistence that he get an additional up to $25 million to investigate the company.
“You certainly didn’t respond and say, ‘Of course, you can settle Mr. Franklin’s claims without paying me and Mr. Avenatti.’ You did not do that, did you?” Copeland asked.
“I don’t believe that I did. No,” Geragos answered.
Copeland asked if Geragos denies saying “That’s a strange question” when a Nike official asked if they can settle the case without paying him and Avenatti.
“It wasn’t exactly in that format, but I did say, ‘That’s a strange question,’” Geragos testified.
Geragos also acknowledged that Avenatti said something “to the effect” of Nike didn’t need to pay Franklin a lot of money, and he confirmed he said in the meeting “that one of the reasons we’re on the plaintiff’s side is cashing checks.”
Copeland press him to confirm his specific words.
“Mr. Geragos, you used those exact words. Did you not?” Copeland asked.
“I said something to that effect, correct,” Geragos answered.
“No, Mr. Geragos. I just want to know that you said — you used those exact words. Not something to that effect. You said, ‘We’re on the plaintiff’s side to cash checks,’” Copeland said.
“Correct,” Geragos answered.
Geragos pushed back when Copeland asked if it’s true he wasn’t “thinking about Mr. Franklin’s best interest.”
“I didn’t represent Mr. Franklin. I was trying to facilitate a resolution to what i thought was a very difficult situation for Nike,” Geragos answered.
Copeland reminded him he’d answered differently in a deposition. Copeland ended up reading Geragos’ answer aloud from a transcript.
“When I reached out, I wasn’t thinking about his best interests. That wasn’t what I was dealing with,” Geragos said in the deposition.
Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff is a reader-supported project that utilizes my 20 years of reporting experience in traditional media to bring you in-depth news about major legal issues. If you want to support my work, consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
Copeland also questioned Geragos about Los Angeles lawyer Bryan Freedman representing him in his own lawsuit against Franklin. Copeland said Freedman is “known for hyper-aggressive, high-profile battles” and not someone people generally hire to “de-escalate.”
“Did you hire Bryan Freedman in this litigation to send a message to Mr. Franklin?” Copeland asked.
Macias objected to the question as argumentative and Judge Cochran said, “It is” but added, “I think the witness can handle it.”
“No, I didn’t — the only person who was sending a message was you, Mr. Copeland,” Geragos answered.
In cross-examination, Macias asked about a message Avenatti wrote for him to send to Kaplan at Nike, whom Geragos testified he considered a friend.
The message read, “Avenatti is frustrated and is going to blow this wide open. If you want a chance to contain this, we need to have a meeting with you ASAP. I’m trying to help, but it’s out of my hands. He’s not going to go through Boies. If you want an attorney from there at the meeting, fine. As a friend I suggest you try to work with him because the fallout otherwise.”
Geragos sent Avenatti his version, “Avenatti is frustrated. I suggest a meeting Monday afternoon at my office. I’m trying to help but it’s about to be out of my hands. He’s not going to go through Boies. If you want an attorney from there at the meeting, fine. I tried to get them to come to my office today but they could only do it at theirs, which was a nonstarter for him.”
Geragos testified on Monday, “I knew Michael well enough to know that if I didn’t get him into a room with Nike that he was going to do something that I thought would be harmful to nike.” Geragos said he “didn’t know who Mr. Franklin was, had never talked to Mr. Franklin and he wasn’t my client.”
“My interest going into this was Nike,” Geragos testified.
Macias referenced the message about a confidential settlement that Copeland said Geragos had changed to mediation. Geragos testified he did so “because a mediation under the law has specific meaning that is different than a settlement.”
“A settlement is where you’re going to try and resolve the case for a necessary amount of money. First problem we had in this was, as it was explained to me, I thought that there was a criminal liability on both sides of the aisle, so to speak,” Geragos testified. He said he “thought that Michael’s client had criminal exposure, so I wanted it to be mediated.”
At the time, Avenatti was “at the top of the game” and “in demand.”
“He was kind of the flavor of the season, if you will,” Geragos testified.
Geragos testified he “was not comfortable with what happened” during the second meeting with Nike on March 21, 2019, so he chose not to attend the third, which is when Avenatti was arrested.
“It appeared to me that Boies, the law firm, had received a grand jury subpoena and had not complied. They had not turned over the Gary Franklin material to the Southern District [of New York]. That set off alarm bells,” Geragos testified.
Geragos said he didn’t attend the third meeting, which Nike and Boies covertly recorded for the FBI, because “Nike is a publicly traded company” and “could not do a payoff and not disclose the information.”
“I was not going to be part of that,” Geragos testified.
Geragos said he called Nike’s lawyer Scott Wilson at Boies, now a partner at DLA Piper LLP, “and told him I was not going to attend.”
“I didn’t want to get in the way of whatever Michael and Nike were going to do, but I wasn’t going to be part of it,” Geragos testified.
Macis questioned Geragos about his work connecting people by mentioning his frequent courthouse phone calls.
“I think everyone can honestly say we’ve seen you on your phone in and out of this courtroom,” Macias said. Geragos said he gets “hundreds” of calls a day or a week from people asking to connect them to a company or person.
“Just by virtue of what I do, that’s what happens,” Geragos testified.
“Do you normally get a fee for that or a piece of the action or something like that?” Macias asked.
“No. I mean, if something needs help — I did it twice this morning actually,” Geragos answered.
Judge Cochran interjected and told the jury, “Ladies and gentlemen, we all have things going on.”
“We’re all getting calls and texts right now. You’re getting them right now as you sit there. You have children, lives. People need you,” the judge said. He told Macias, “We’re just not doing that now. We’re just not doing that right now.”
Macias again mentioned Geragos being on the phone and Cochran sustained Copeland’s objection and said, “All of us need to be on the phone. All of us need to be looking at it and stuff.”
“That’s not what this case is about. This case aint about whether somebody is on the phone. This case is about something that happened. It’s a big deal. Stick to that, please,” the judge continued.
In re-direct, Copeland questioned Geragos about his testimony that he was interested in helping Nike.
Geragos said he’s never represented Nike, but Nike “has sought me out post-resolution of Colin’s case to do things to their benefit,” referring to former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick.
Geragos said he “may have” referred to Franklin as a client when he contacted Kaplan at Nike.
“I may have. I know that I did at least refer to it as an Adidas problem,” Geragos said.
Previous articles:
Transcripts of Geragos’ cross-examination and Maloney’s testimony are available below for paid subscribers. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible.