FOLLOW US

Case Details:

• David Kenner, Suge Knight’s longtime attorney, stunned a Los Angeles courtroom by admitting he questioned his own ability in “being able to competently and energetically try this case,” raising red flags about his fitness to practice law.
• Incarcerated rap mogul Suge Knight, who appeared remotely, rejected Kenner’s bid to abandon him, insisting on moving forward with his April 7 wrongful death retrial despite the attorney’s plea to withdraw.
• Judge Thomas Long slammed the brakes on Kenner’s escape attempt, calling it “untimely” on the eve of trial, leaving the attorney trapped in a case he claims he can’t handle—potentially exposing a breach of legal ethics.

By Samuel Lopez | USA Herald

Los Angeles, CA – The saga of Marion “Suge” Knight, the embattled co-founder of Death Row Records, took a jaw-dropping turn on Thursday when his veteran attorney, David Kenner, begged to be released from representing him in a looming civil retrial.

The courtroom clash, broadcast over a crackling connection from Knight’s San Diego prison cell, revealed a disturbing issue of competency for Kenner, that could go beyond this case, and into the controversial State Bar Court of California.

At the heart of this legal tempest lies Kenner’s chilling admission: he no longer feels “competent” or “energetic”enough to defend Knight, a statement that’s not just a personal crisis but a potential violation of the sacred duties every lawyer swears to uphold.

Knight, 59, is no stranger to controversy. Currently serving a 28-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter after a fatal 2015 hit-and-run that claimed the life of Compton businessman Terry Carter, he’s now fighting a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Carter’s family. The retrial, set to begin on April 7, is the second attempt to settle the civil claims after a 2022 jury deadlocked seven to five. But as the clock ticks down, it’s not just Knight’s fate hanging in the balance—it’s Kenner’s credibility as an officer of the court.

During the 30-minute hearing before Los Angeles County Judge Thomas Long, Kenner dropped a bombshell. He claimed a “disturbing” phone call with Knight in the past six weeks had left him rattled, sparking an “irreconcilable conflict” that rendered him essentially unfit to proceed.

“I felt anxious about being able to competently and energetically try this case,” Kenner confessed. He refused to spill the details, cloaking himself in the shield of attorney-client privilege, but the vagueness only fueled the fire.

Knight fired back. He speculated that Kenner’s distress stemmed from “death threats” allegedly made by a third party against the lawyer—a claim Kenner swiftly shot down. “That’s not the case,” Kenner insisted, though he vaguely recalled a sinister remark from a witness years ago that had left him uneasy. The exchange painted a picture of mistrust and miscommunication, but it was Kenner’s self-doubt that stole the spotlight.

“I don’t want to do it. I don’t want to represent him,” Kenner pleaded, laying bare a crisis of confidence that’s rare—and potentially damning—for a licensed attorney. For Knight, the stakes couldn’t be higher. “I’m really in a bad position,” he told the court. “I don’t want to be in a situation where I go into a courtroom and end up losing because I’m by myself. I just want a fair trial.”

Judge Long didn’t mince words. Labeling Kenner’s motion to withdraw as “untimely” with trial just days away, he slammed the door shut on the attorney’s immediate exit strategy. The month-long jury trial remains on track for Monday, though Long left a sliver of wiggle room for Kenner, ordering the parties back for a final status conference today, Friday, April 4, 2025. He hinted at a possible one-week delay if both sides agree to trim their evidence and testimony—a suggestion Knight might later argue infringes on his due process rights.

Kenner, visibly shaken, didn’t back down quietly. After the ruling, he demanded an expedited transcript and vowed to appeal, arguing that the court’s decision traps both him and Knight in an “impossible position.” “I think an appellate court would overrule it,” he said defiantly, promising to seek a stay while the appeal plays out. But for now, he’s tethered to a case he claims—he insists—he can’t handle.

Kenner’s admission isn’t just a personal meltdown—it’s a legal wake-up call. Under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 demands that lawyers “shall not intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.” Competence, the rule specifies, requires “mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary” for the job. By confessing he lacks the energy and competence to try Knight’s case, while handling numerous other cases, Kenner has effectively waved a red flag at the State Bar, inviting scrutiny that could unravel his career.

This isn’t hyperbole. As a seasoned legal professional who’s dissected hundreds of attorney withdrawal motions, I’ve seen the playbook: Not always, but in many cases, lawyers concoct excuses—some flimsy, some fabricated—to ditch cases they no longer want.

The California Bar’s online attorney search tool exposes a history of discipline concerning Kenner. On January 25, 2024, the State Bar Court found Kenner guilty in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 40 I (3) (Criminal Contempt).

In 2002, he was suspended for one year (stayed) and placed on two years’ probation after a State Bar Court ruling tied to misconduct. He was ordered to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination—a slap on the wrist compared to what his latest statements might trigger.

If Kenner’s lack of “energy” translates to subpar representation, Knight—and potentially other clients—could have grounds to claim harm - potentially legal malpractice. The Bar should be asking: How long has this been going on? How many cases has Kenner “de-energized” his way through?

Knight’s response: “I’ve known Mr. Kenner for a very long time, and I feel we still have a relationship,” he said, rejecting the notion of an irreconcilable rift. “I’m very tired and want to put this behind me.” His refusal to let Kenner go isn’t just loyalty—it’s pragmatism. With trial looming, swapping attorneys would mean months of delays, a luxury Knight, locked in a 28-year sentence, can’t afford. “I can’t proceed alone,” he stressed, a stark reminder that even Suge Knight is at the mercy of his counsel’s competence.

His narrative clashed with Kenner’s at every turn. Where Kenner saw a breaking point, Knight saw continuity. Where Kenner cited a mysterious disturbance, Knight pointed to tangible threats—though unconfirmed. The judge sided with Knight, at least for now. But the tension underscores a broader truth: when attorneys falter, clients bear the brunt.

The retrial stems from a grisly 2015 incident at Tam’s Burgers in Compton. Carter’s family alleges Knight negligently plowed his Ford Raptor truck into Carter, killing him, amid a dispute linked to the N.W.A biopic Straight Outta Compton. Knight insists he acted in self-defense, claiming he was ambushed by Cle “Bone” Sloan, who allegedly attacked him with a gun through his truck window. Sloan, injured in the same hit-and-run, denied wielding a firearm, testifying in 2015 that he held only a two-way radio.

Surveillance footage from that day—shown repeatedly in the 2022 trial—captures the chaos: Knight’s truck roaring into the parking lot, striking Carter and Sloan, and leaving a trail of tragedy. Knight ties the incident to an earlier confrontation with Sloan at the movie’s production office, where he’d sought Dr. Dre over rumors of a murder-for-hire plot. Dre’s camp has long dismissed those claims as baseless. The first trial ended in a hung jury; this second shot aims to settle the score.

Kenner’s predicament, however, isn’t just a subplot—it’s a glaring warning. Attorneys don’t get to cherry-pick their vigor. I’ve seen this dance before: lawyers disengage, skimping on prep, banking on clients’ ignorance to coast through, doing the least possible on a case, and even attorneys using strong-arm tactic against their own clients. It’s a betrayal of trust, and when it’s blatant, it demands accountability.

The California Bar must dig deeper. Kenner’s past suspension and dubious past, hints at a pattern; If he’s unfit now, who’s to say he wasn’t unfit before? Clients deserve better.

As of this morning, April 4, 2025, the final status conference looms. Will Judge Long stick to his guns, forcing Kenner to soldier on? Will Knight’s due process claims gain traction if evidence gets slashed to accommodate the attorney’s woes? And will Kenner’s appeal—or the Bar’s inevitable probe—upend this legal quagmire? Stay tuned; we’ll report the latest as it breaks.

Fact-Check Section

• Kenner’s Disciplinary History: Confirmed via California Bar records; see the 2002 ruling suspending David Elliot Kenner (State Bar No. 41425).
• California Rules of Professional Conduct: Quoted directly from Rule 1.1, accessible on the State Bar of California website.
• For a deeper dive into legal ethics and high-profile courtroom dramas, join me on Patreon

Disclaimer: This information is for general knowledge and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.