Dame Dash has discovered that he no longer has an attorney, as his longtime lawyer has officially resigned over unpaid legal fees.
According to court documents obtained by HipHopDX, Felton T. Newell and Justin H. Sanders, Esqs., of Sanders Roberts LLP, had their motions to withdraw as the ex-Roc-A-Fella exec’s legal representation granted as of March 29, and, as of Friday (April 5), they informed all parties involved in the matter.
Newell and Sanders claim that they withdrew as Dash’s legal counsel due to the embattled executive’s “breach of contractual obligations to the firm,” meaning that Dash had not paid them for their services.
Damon Dash now has until April 29 to find new counsel to represent him. If he fails to do so, he will be permitted to represent himself, though this is highly unusual at the federal level.
Dame Dash’s attorney officially resigns over unpaid legal fees pic.twitter.com/XovXdmx9LM
— HipHopDX (@HipHopDX) April 7, 2024
The motion to withdraw was first filed by Sanders Roberts LLP last month.
The firm was defending him after he was sued by photographer Monique Bunn.
The firm alleged that the mogul: “failed to fulfill their financial obligations under their retainer agreement, resulting in the firm initiating an enforcement action against them.”
Christopher Brown initially filed the lawsuit on behalf of the photographer in late February, and he requested that the courts reopen Bunn’s case of damages against the Hip Hop executive, claiming that the jury in the previous case didn’t fully understand the nature of the damages Bunn had incurred as a result of Dash’s alleged actions.
According to the 285-page memorandum of law, Dame Dash confirmed the value of the photographs he allegedly withheld from Bunn and knew that he didn’t properly compensate her for using them the way he had (that is, beyond the scope of promotional purposes). For this reason, Brown argued, the case needed to be reopened.
“The evidence at trial – which was uncontroverted – established that each photo was worth $1,500, which should have resulted in a verdict for at least $384,750,000,” Brown wrote. “It is well known that professional photographers earn much of their income through licensing their portfolio of photographs, and Defendants’ actions destroyed Ms. Bunn’s economic prospects. The jury ignored the valuation evidence and awarded zero to Ms. Bunn.”
He continued: “It is impossible to conceive how a jury could conclude that a professional photographer’s portfolio of thousands of photos, as well as photography equipment, could be worth zero. Especially when the Plaintiff and the Defendants both testify that the damages are in the millions. A new trial is warranted under these circumstances.”
