Director Bryan Singer‘s lawyer, Marty Singer (no relation), condemned his accusers’ attorney, Jeff Herman, on Wednesday as a liar and publicity hound driven by avarice, demanding in a letter obtained by The Hollywood Reporter that he dismiss and not refile lawsuits against Bryan Singer and warning of future sanctions and an action for malicious prosecution. The letter slams the lawsuits as “frivolous,” “meritless,” inaccurate and legally deficient.
“You seek to preen for the media in an effort to solicit new clients, ultimately looking for a payday for yourself,” said Marty Singer’s letter. “You have now resorted to lying to the public concerning your actions, including your false statements to the media this week to the effect that our client has refused to accept service of your earlier lawsuit on behalf of Michael Egan.”
Egan is the plaintiff — and Herman the plaintiff’s lawyer — in suits filed in Hawaii against Bryan Singer, Gary Goddard, Garth Ancier and David Neuman. Herman is again the lawyer, and an anonymous U.K. actor denominated “John Doe 117” the plaintiff in a separate suit filed Saturday in Los Angeles against Bryan Singer and Goddard. The latter suit was closed Tuesday on administrative grounds — it had been filed electronically rather than manually as required — but can be refiled.
Marty Singer’s letter warned against refiling in dire terms: “On behalf of Mr. Singer, I am hereby demanding that you immediately dismiss, with prejudice, the Egan lawsuit and refrain from refiling the ‘John Doe’ lawsuit that you filed against him. If you fail to do so, then you will be exposed to significant liability.”
“This is a critical time in these cases because this is when I typically see the strongest pushback,” Herman tells THR. “I made a commitment not only to these victims but to all victims who allege to have been harmed by Hollywood predators that, if based on the facts, I have a good-faith belief in the merits of their claim, I will not be deterred by threats or bullying in my quest to shine a light on this darkness and seek justice for victims.”
Referring to Herman’s alleged false statements regarding service of the lawsuits, the letter added, “Perhaps we should not be surprised that you have made such gross misrepresentations given your suspension by the Florida Bar for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and deceit.”
That’s a reference to an 18-month suspension imposed by the Florida Supreme Court in 2009 for investing in and controlling a business competitor of a client and failing to tell the client he had done so.
The letter also criticized Herman for suing Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash after the statute of limitations had expired, and said, “You have demonstrated a pattern of filing legally deficient lawsuits. Your repeated failure to properly investigate claims before rushing to the courthouse and then hosting press conferences is inexcusable and rises to the level of sanctionable conduct.”
The letter also complains that Herman filed the Hawaii suits without first contacting Marty Singer to discuss it and determine whether there was evidence — as Marty Singer says there is — that Bryan Singer was not in Hawaii at the time of the alleged sex parties.
Instead of fully investigating the facts, says the letter, “You only care about seeking publicity for yourself and attempting to revive your career after being so publicly and embarrassingly suspended from practice.”
The “John Doe 117” suit is, says the letter, “replete with absurd factual inaccuracies” and also alleges conduct that is not actionable, because the age of consent in the U.K. is 16. The lawsuit argues that the California age of consent, 18, should apply because Singer and Goddard allegedly formulated their sexual plans regarding the U.K. teen while in California. In addition, the federal age, also 18, assertedly applies to travel from the U.S. for sexual purposes.
Herman said at a press conference Monday, where he displayed evidence regarding the “John Doe 117” suit, that he expected to file additional Hollywood teen sex suits involving both male and female plaintiffs and not necessarily involving the same defendants as the current suits.