Trial Takeaways:

• Civil jury finds that Geragos aided and abetted Avenatti in Nike extortion plot
• Geragos found to have breached legal duties—risking possible State Bar discipline
• Despite a $100,000 verdict, Geragos’ future as a California attorney now hangs in the balance

By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald

LOS ANGELES, CA - The legal world was shaken this week when famed Los Angeles defense attorney Mark Geragos, renowned for defending headline-grabbing clients like the Menendez brothers and his role as an advisor to the Sean “Diddy” Combs legal team, was hit with a jury verdict finding that he breached his duties as a lawyer in the now-infamous Nike extortion scheme. While the monetary damages were modest—$100,000 awarded to youth basketball coach Gary Franklin—the real weight of the verdict may rest on Geragos’ continued ability to practice law in California.

Mark Geragos, a fixture of celebrity legal defense, found himself on the wrong side of the courtroom after being accused, alongside disbarred attorney Michael Avenatti, of orchestrating a scheme to extract millions from sports apparel giant Nike.

The two attorneys allegedly demanded that, beyond settling with Franklin, the apparel company also needed to agree to pay them over $20 million to conduct a confidential internal investigation—or else Avenatti would go public with purported misconduct in youth basketball that he had learned from Franklin, according to the lawsuit filed by Franklin.

The underlying case? Franklin, a longtime coach of the respected Los Angeles-based youth basketball program California Supreme, had received $72,000 annually in sponsorship support from Nike. But when Nike ended its sponsorship deal in 2019, Franklin sought help from Michael Avenatti—who at the time was riding a wave of national fame for representing Stormy Daniels in legal battles against Donald Trump.

Franklin contended that Avenatti and Geragos torpedoed a $1.5 million settlement opportunity by seeking massive personal paydays and leveraging Franklin’s allegations of misconduct in college basketball recruiting.

The extortion plot quickly made national headlines. Avenatti—already a controversial figure—was arrested, convicted and sentenced to 2 1/2-years in prison. Geragos, meanwhile, avoided criminal indictment, but his role as an alleged co-conspirator drew sharp scrutiny from both legal peers and the public.

Geragos’ Spiraling Downfall and The Jury’s Findings

In a packed Los Angeles courtroom, after days of high-stakes testimony, including from Geragos himself, jurors issued their verdict. While Geragos was not Franklin’s official attorney of record during the relevant periods alleged in the complaint (that role belonged to Avenatti), the jury nonetheless found Geragos:

• Had a role in the 2018 Nike extortion scheme
• Aided and abetted Avenatti, knowingly assisting wrongful conduct
• Breached his duties as a lawyer

Crucially, the jury stopped short of finding that Geragos defrauded or actively concealed information from Franklin, and concluded that Franklin suffered no direct harm from Geragos. But the recent finding that Geragos aided and abetted Avenatti in the extortion scheme, and knowingly assisted in wrongful conduct, reverberates far beyond the dollar amount of the verdict.

As Franklin’s attorney, Trent Copeland, noted, “There’s no spinning what this jury decided. Geragos may have avoided criminal charges, but a civil jury found him liable after concluding he owed our client a fiduciary duty and knowingly assisted Michael Avenatti in carrying out misconduct.”

California Bar Standards and What Comes Next

Legal experts agree: the biggest threat facing Geragos now isn’t financial, it’s professional. California attorneys are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly:

• Rule 1.2.1 (Advising or Assisting the Violation of Law): Lawyers are prohibited from counseling or assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.
  
• Rule 8.4 (Misconduct): It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation.”
  
• Business & Professions Code § 6106: Involves “moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.” A finding of moral turpitude can be grounds for disbarment.

Given the jury’s conclusions—especially findings of aiding and abetting, and knowing participation in a scheme to extort—a formal review by the California State Bar seems not just possible, but likely.

Potential Outcomes for Geragos:

• Public reproval or suspension
• Mandatory ethics training or probation
• Disbarment, if the conduct is found egregious enough

If disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the findings of the civil jury—especially as they relate to breaches of fiduciary duty and moral turpitude—could weigh heavily against Geragos.

Plaintiff Wins—No Matter the Amount

Despite the comparatively modest $100,000 damages award, this case sets a lasting precedent. In civil litigation, the “prevailing party” is the one who wins any positive judgment, even if the amount is symbolic. Here, Franklin is legally the winner. As any seasoned litigator knows, a win is a win—even if your adversary smiles for the cameras and claims otherwise.

Trent Copeland, who represented Franklin, said the $100,000 award was “less substantial than we believe the evidence proved” but a win nonetheless.

The real contest for Geragos is just beginning. As the legal maxim goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied”—but justice may be only just beginning to catch up with Mark Geragos.

Multiple Perspectives: Defense and Plaintiff Weigh In

Sean Macias, Geragos’ defense counsel, insists, “We are gratified that the jurors saw through this lawsuit and found Mr. Geragos caused no harm,” echoing the argument that Geragos was little more than a bystander—a “concierge” connecting parties.

“It’s almost like suing a concierge,” Macias said. “At all times, all he was doing was connecting someone.” 

Remarking that Avenatti handled most of the discussions with Nike’s attorneys in 2019, Macias summed up Geragos’ stance: “All I did was bring two parties together, sit quietly, sip a Diet Coke, and somehow, I ended up getting sued.”

Yet, as the jury made clear, sitting silently in the room while wrongful conduct unfolds does not absolve an attorney of responsibility.

For deeper insights and exclusive legal analyses, join me on Patreon at “Legal Insights and Strategies by Samuel Lopez.” Join Here

Sources:

• California Rules of Professional Conduct
• State Bar of California Complaint Process
• Attorney Misconduct Complaint