A proxy fight between two activist organizations
In this case, Marc Randazza was tapped to be a “lawyer’s lawyer” on a free speech issue. In the underlying case Plaintiff Zohra Khorashi posted regularly in favor of the Palestinian cause on social media. Her comments wound up on a forum called “Jewhatedb” and a number of people identified her and the law firm where she worked including the X account, stopantisemitism.org. Her comments were perceived by many as anti-semitic, and people contacted the firm where she worked. She was later fired from the firm because of the posts. Khorashi blamed Jewish couple for her misfortunes and sued them for tortious interference and defamation. She is represented by Christopher Sharp and Omar Saleh. This is notable because Saleh is representing her under the auspices of the Council on American Islamic Relations, a nonprofit organization that has funded litigation to censor political views with which it disagrees.
The Lawfare Project describes itself as the legal arm of the Jewish community. It provides pro bono legal services to protect the civil and human rights of the Jewish people worldwide. It has fielded a team of Jaclyn Clark and celebrity attorney Kenneth Turkel to defend the couple.
Randazza is not handling the underlying suit. But in the proxy war between the Lawfare Project and CAIR, a secondary free speech issue arose. Turkel, Clark, and the Lawfare Project secured a win on a motion to dismiss and published a press release celebrating the win. Press Release.
With lightning speed, the Plaintiff sought sanctions against the couple and their attorneys for the press release. Their motion for sanctions calls for the lawyers to be disciplined by, inter alia, being disqualified from the case.
Randazza Legal Group, as First Amendment lawyers, were called in to defend The Lawfare Project, the couple, and attorneys Clark and Turkel.
“Whenever a fellow attorney chooses you to defend them, it is a high honor,” said Randazza. “I have great respect for the Lawfare Project’s mission of defending freedom of speech when members of the Jewish community are singled out for ‘lawfare,’ and I greatly admire Attorneys Clark and Turkel. It is a great privilege to defend the First Amendment and these legal giants.”
The opposition speaks for itself and calls out the motion as based on factual misrepresentations as well as relying heavily on hallucinated legal citations. “If you are going to try to sanction a lawyer for speaking their mind, you should take care that you take that shot cleanly. Using fake case law to do so is going to be noticed,” said Randazza.
The sanctions motion is now, itself, subject to a motion for sanctions.
The matter remains pending at this time.