Johnny Depp attorney Camille Vasquez ‘determined to defend’ ‘Yellowstone’s’ Q’orianka Kilcher in fraud case

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Johnny Depp’s attorney, Camille Vasquez, has signed on to represent “Yellowstone” actress Q’orianka Kilcher in her legal battle against the state of California after being charged with two felony counts for workers’ compensation fraud earlier this year.

Vasquez made a name for herself as one of the driving forces behind Depp’s victory in the multi-million defamation suit he filed against ex-wife Amber Heard in Virginia. After a six-week trial, a jury declared Heard defamed the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star, and he was awarded $10.35 million in damages. Heard was granted $2 million in a countersuit as jurors found Depp defamed her through one of his attorneys.

Camille, who joined Brown Rudnick LLP in 2018 as a litigation attorney and was offered a partner position shortly after her big win with the Depp trial, will work alongside Steve Cook, another partner at the firm with a focus on white collar defense investigations.

JOHNNY DEPP TO DIRECT FIRST MOVIE IN 25 YEARS AFTER AMBER HEARD COURTROOM VICTORY

Camille Vasquez (left) will represent 'Yellowstone" actress Q'orianka Kilcher (right) in her workers' compensation fraud lawsuit with the state of California.

Camille Vasquez (left) will represent ‘Yellowstone” actress Q’orianka Kilcher (right) in her workers’ compensation fraud lawsuit with the state of California.
(Getty Images)

Vasquez and Brown told Fox News Digital they are “determined to defend” Kilcher in her case, which was filed by the California Department of Insurance in July and claims she collected disability benefits while working on the popular drama despite claiming she was too injured to work .

JOHNNY DEPP IS MTV VMAS MOONMAN DURING SURPRISE APPEARANCE AT AWARD SHOW: ‘NEEDED THE WORK’

“We are determined to defend Ms. Kilcher in this important case which examines the inherent flaws in the disability compensation system,” they shared in a statement. “Ms. Kilcher is a well-respected and pioneering actress in Hollywood, and we

Read the rest

Amber Heard’s insurance company doesn’t want to pay her damages to Johnny Depp, Entertainment News

Amber Heard was ordered to pay her ex-husband Johnny Depp US$10.35 million (S$14.5 million) in compensatory and punitive damages after a jury in Virginia ruled she had defamed him when she wrote an article in 2018 about being a victim of domestic abuse.

The Aquaman actress was awarded US$2 million in compensatory damages and she was hoping her US$1 million liability policy with New York Marine and General Insurance Co. would see her not having to foot the bill.

However, while the policy covers various types of wrongful conduct, including defamation, TMZ noted that under California law – which governs the policy – an insurance company is not liable to pay if the insured party committed wrongful, willful misconduct, and the firm noted that not only did the jury find Amber had committed wilful defamation, it was also deemed to be malicious.

New York Marine are seeking a declaration from the judge that based on the policy and the law, they are not responsible to pay the damages for Amber.

Amber recently admitted she could understand why people might dismiss her and her ex-husband as “Hollywood brats” for taking their differences to trial, but she claimed there was much more to the case than a former couple airing their dirty laundry in public.

She said: “I would not blame the average person for looking at this and how this has been covered and thinking that this is Hollywood brats at their worst.

“But what people don’t understand is that it is actually so much bigger than that. This is not only about our First Amendment right to speak.”

The 36-year-old star also said she was astounded by the “vitriol” at her on social media, and she went on to claim she saw Johnny’s fans lining the streets outside the courtroom

Read the rest

Amber Heard’s Insurance Company Files Lawsuit Against Actress, Claims She Willfully Defamed Johnny Depp

bredcrumb bredcrumb

News

oi-Sanyukta Thakare

|

Amber Heard who has been ordered to pay USD 10.34 million to her ex-husband following their high-profile defamation trial, is now being sued by her own insurance company. Amber’s insurance company is reportedly refused to pay for the damages the actress owes and has filed a suit so it can be absolved of any duty to pay for her defense.

Johnny Deppjohnny depp” data-cl-description=”” data-cl-imageid=”337497-1″ onload=”pagespeed.lazyLoadImages.loadIfVisibleAndMaybeBeacon(this);” onerror=”this.onerror=null;pagespeed.lazyLoadImages.loadIfVisibleAndMaybeBeacon(this);”/

Amber Heard's Lawyers Call For Mistrial, Allege Wrong Juror Was Present For Johnny Depp's Trial ProceedingsAmber Heard’s Lawyers Call For Mistrial, Allege Wrong Juror Was Present For Johnny Depp’s Trial Proceedings

The insurance company has reportedly claimed that Johnny Depp was ‘willfully’ and ‘maliciously’ defamed by his ex-wife Amber Heard. Alawandcrime.com report revealed that the New York Marine and General Insurance Company filed the suit against Amber on Friday (July 8) in the US District Court for the Central District of California.

The report added that amber has had a $1 million liability policy with the company, from July 2018 to July 2019. It was during this time she wrote the op-ed in The Washington Post claiming that she was ‘a public figure representing domestic abuse ‘. Amber could use the insurance to pay a portion of the damages she owes Johnny but the company could refuse to pay out if Amber was found to have committed ‘willful’ and ‘malicious’ misconduct.

<a href=amber heard, johnny depp” title=”amber heard, johnny depp” data-cl-slideshow=”” data-cl-title=”amber heard, johnny depp” data-cl-description=”” data-cl-imageid=”337497-0″ onload=”pagespeed.lazyLoadImages.loadIfVisibleAndMaybeBeacon(this);” onerror=”this.onerror=null;pagespeed.lazyLoadImages.loadIfVisibleAndMaybeBeacon(this);”/

Amber Heard's Lawyers Seek To Overturn Defamation Verdict Citing 'Improper Juror Service'Amber Heard’s Lawyers Seek To Overturn Defamation Verdict Citing ‘Improper Juror Service’

In the suit, the insurance company added that it may be liable for an insured party’s Negligence but ‘an insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured’.

On the other hand, Amber’s lawyers have filed in a

Read the rest

Why a good lawyer never ignores the court of public opinion

Johnny Depp vs.  Amber Heard defamation trial continues in Fairfax, Virginia

Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard defamation trial continues in Fairfax, Virginia

What role can the media play in courtroom strategy play? Or, to put it differently, how best can counsel advocate outside of the courtroom, particularly in publicly prominent trials?

Having had the good fortune of acting as counsel on many high-profile Canadian cases during my career, starting conspicuously with acting for the chief prosecution witness before the Patti Starr Commission of Inquiry, aka the Houlden Commission, in 1989, I have had a front -row seat to the interplay between media and counsel in such disputes.

Ignoring the media is not an option. Not a good one anyway. Choosing to not respond to media inquiries should be a deliberate decision rather than one of invariable policy. Otherwise, the media will define your case and your client to the public. That other court — the court of public opinion — must always be kept in mind.

Dan Abrams, the chief legal analyst for ABC News, once told a story about a friend working on a high-profile case who was concerned about being seen as a “media whore.” Abrams joked in response that, “There’s got to be something between whoring and abstinence.”

Judges, however skilled and neutral, are not immune to arguments that are made about a case outside of the courtroom, particularly when public policy is a factor in determining the law itself. That occurs more often than most realize and plays a particular role in employment law, where courts have enunciated that the law should be interpreted to redress the imbalance of power between employees and employers, particularly at the time of dismissal when employees are at their most vulnerable . Courts have explicitly said that, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Machtinger vs. HOJ, which I successfully argued

Read the rest