Diddy’s Lawyers Seek to Withdraw From $100 Million Defamation Case Over Unpaid Fees
Lawyers representing rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs have asked a US court for permission to withdraw from a $100 million civil defamation lawsuit, citing months of unpaid legal fees and what they described as a breakdown in communication with the musician.
New York law firm Sher Tremonte said Combs’ conduct had made it increasingly difficult to continue representing him effectively.
In a court filing seeking to withdraw as counsel, partner Michael Tremonte said the firm had not received a substantial amount of fees, costs and expenses owed by Combs for more than six months.
The filing, reported by NBC News, said the situation had resulted in “a total breakdown in cooperation and communication” between the firm and its client.
Lawyers cite unpaid fees and lack of cooperation
According to Tremonte, Combs had failed to settle a significant balance owed to the firm and had also become increasingly uncooperative.
“The firm’s representation has been rendered unreasonably difficult by Mr Combs’s lack of cooperation, resulting in a breakdown in attorney-client communications and rendering Sher Tremonte incapable of continuing to provide effective legal services to Mr Combs,” the filing stated.
The firm further alleged that Combs had declined to make himself available for timely and substantive discussions about his cases for four of the months in question.
Sher Tremonte is representing Combs in a $100 million defamation lawsuit arising from allegations connected to his criminal case.
Combs disputes lawyers’ claims
Combs, through his representatives, disputed the law firm’s account and said he had decided to change lawyers because he believed he was being overcharged.
“I made the decision to switch lawyers because I won’t let anyone take advantage of me by overcharging me and running up bills that were never approved,” Combs said.
He described the disagreement as a business dispute over charges he said had not been authorised.
“This is strictly a business matter, and any talk about unpaid fees is just part of our dispute over those unapproved charges,” he added.
Tremonte rejected the accusation that the firm had overcharged Combs, saying it had represented him “zealously and very efficiently”.
“As stated in our court filings, we are withdrawing from representing him because he has not paid his long-overdue invoices and has become uncooperative,” Tremonte told NBC News.
“Any suggestion that we overcharged him is simply false.”
Diddy’s legal battles continue
The dispute over legal fees comes as Combs continues to face several legal challenges.
The rapper is currently serving a 50-month federal prison sentence at Fort Dix in New Jersey after being convicted on prostitution-related offences. He was acquitted of the more serious sex-trafficking and racketeering charges brought against him.
Earlier this year, prosecutors in Los Angeles reportedly considered whether to bring additional sexual assault charges against him.
Combs has also faced civil allegations from record producer Jonathan Hay, who accused him of assault, sexual harassment, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress in connection with a 2020 collaboration involving the estate of late rapper Christopher Wallace, better known as The Notorious B.I.G.
Combs has denied the allegations and sued Hay for defamation.
Defamation case involving Courtney Burgess
Another legal battle involves music manager Courtney Burgess, who told a grand jury in 2024 that Combs had allegedly given him flash drives containing videos of Combs sexually assaulting minors and other celebrities.
Combs has denied the allegations and accused Burgess and his lawyer, Ariel Mitchell, of spreading what he described as “outlandish claims” and “wild lies”.
Earlier this month, TMZ reported that a judge allowed Combs’ defamation case against Burgess, Mitchell and media company Nexstar to proceed.
The case relates in part to comments Mitchell made while appearing on NewsNation, where she reportedly supported Burgess’ claims about the alleged videos.
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.