A legal watchdog group has appealed a New York disciplinary committee’s decision to dismiss its complaint against Roberta Kaplan, the attorney representing E. Jean Carroll, over the late disclosure of Democratic donor Reid Hoffman’s financial support in Carroll’s high-profile defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump.
The case has drawn attention to the issue of transparency and attorney conduct in politically charged litigation, particularly regarding the disclosure of third-party funding arrangements.
Background of the Complaint
The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a nonprofit watchdog, filed its original complaint in July with the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department of New York. The NLPC alleged that Kaplan failed to promptly disclose that Carroll’s lawsuit was funded by Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn and a prominent Democratic donor. According to tax filings cited by NLPC and Influence Watch, Hoffman’s nonprofit, American Future Republic, paid $7 million to Carroll’s legal team to cover litigation expenses.
The NLPC’s complaint focused on the timeline and accuracy of disclosures regarding this funding. During an October 2022 deposition, Carroll testified under oath that she had not received outside funding for her legal fees. The NLPC contends that Kaplan waited nearly six months after Carroll’s deposition—and only shortly before the trial—to correct the record and disclose the involvement of Hoffman’s nonprofit. The watchdog group argues that this delay may have violated New York’s professional conduct rules for attorneys, which require prompt correction of false or misleading statements made to the court or opposing counsel.
Disciplinary Committee’s Dismissal and Appeal
In August, the Attorney Grievance Committee, led by Chief Counsel Jorge Dopico, dismissed the NLPC’s complaint. The committee stated that the issue of outside funding had already been addressed by the federal court overseeing Carroll’s lawsuit against Trump. The NLPC, however, maintains that the committee did not conduct an independent investigation into Kaplan’s conduct or consider her obligations as an attorney under New York’s rules.
Paul Kamenar, chief counsel for the NLPC, filed an appeal of the committee’s dismissal. In his appeal, addressed to committee co-chairs Tina M. Wells and Milton L. Williams Jr., Kamenar argued that the court’s review was limited to whether Carroll herself had lied under oath, not whether Kaplan had a duty to correct her client’s inaccurate deposition testimony. The court permitted a second deposition of Carroll, but only to clarify her knowledge of the funding arrangement at the time of her original testimony and at present.
Kamenar stated, “If the committee does not reverse the summary dismissal of our complaint, it smacks of a coverup.”
Court Findings and Legal Arguments
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Carroll’s deposition and found no evidence that she was personally involved in securing or managing the outside funding. The appellate court also found no indication that Carroll had interacted with Hoffman or seen any invoices related to the funding before or after her attorneys received the money. As a result, the court rejected Trump’s claim that there had been a lack of disclosure regarding the funding. However, the appellate court did not address the conduct of Kaplan or whether she fulfilled her professional obligations to correct the record.
The NLPC’s appeal argues that the disciplinary committee should have independently considered whether Kaplan’s delayed disclosure constituted a violation of attorney ethics rules, regardless of the federal court’s findings about Carroll’s testimony.
Broader Context: Third-Party Funding in Litigation
The NLPC’s challenge comes amid broader scrutiny of third-party funding in politically sensitive lawsuits. Critics argue that outside funding can influence the direction and public perception of litigation, especially in cases involving high-profile political figures. Supporters of third-party funding, including Hoffman, counter that such financial backing helps level the playing field for plaintiffs facing well-resourced defendants.
Reid Hoffman, in a 2023 interview with The Washington Post, said he did not attempt to keep his support for Carroll’s case secret. He stated that he believed Carroll’s lawsuit deserved support because she was challenging a much wealthier and more powerful opponent.
Outcome of Carroll’s Lawsuits
E. Jean Carroll ultimately won a $5 million judgment against Trump in a sexual assault and defamation case, a verdict that was upheld by the Supreme Court. In a separate defamation lawsuit, Carroll secured an $83 million judgment against Trump, though the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that case.
Responses and Next Steps
According to reporting by The Daily Signal, neither Kaplan Martin—the law firm where Roberta Kaplan practices—nor a spokesperson for Hoffman responded to requests for comment on the NLPC’s appeal. Previously, a Kaplan Martin spokesperson referred inquiries to the 2nd Circuit’s ruling, which found no evidence of misconduct by Carroll herself.
The Attorney Grievance Committee has not indicated whether it will reconsider the complaint following the NLPC’s appeal. The outcome of the appeal could have implications for how attorneys are expected to handle disclosures of third-party funding in future high-profile cases.
The dispute continues to highlight the ongoing debate over transparency, attorney ethics, and the role of outside funding in the American legal system.
