Inset: Patrick Byrne speaks during a panel discussion at the Nebraska Election Integrity Forum on Saturday, Aug. 27, 2022, in Omaha, Neb. (AP Photo/Rebecca S. Gratz). Main: Hunter Biden sits for a wide-ranging interview on Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan in July 2025 (Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan/YouTube).
In an urgent bid to slam the brakes on Hunter Biden”s defamation lawsuit as it edges ever closer to a default judgment against ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, two attorneys disallowed from representing him in the California case are claiming that the way an associate of his former counsel dressed on the eve of a derailed trial could amount to “deliberate sabotage.”
The Wednesday filing from Peter Ticktin on behalf of himself, Stefanie Lambert, and Byrne, seeking a stay of the suit until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in, did not name attorney Michael Murphy’s “associate counsel.”
Nonetheless, Ticktin tore into her for showing up to court in a pantsuit “covered in cat hair,” wearing “old muddy tennis shoes,” and displaying a “Free Palestine” pin on her jacket one day before U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson called off the late July trial over Byrne’s allegedly defamatory claims that Biden committed “despicable and treasonous crimes” involving bribery and Iran.
Ticktin claimed that Murphy was woefully unprepared for trial — not scanning the “contents of the Hunter Biden laptop” to be used as trial exhibits — and that his associate’s manner of dress was only more proof of that:
[I]n a case involving some sensitive national security issues including Iran and nuclear weapons, Michael Murphy’s associate showed up in court the day before trial for hearing on pre-trial rulings, wearing old muddy tennis shoes, but on her jacket a large “Free Palestine” pin. Her positioning in the courtroom would have had her facing the jury. Also, news media was present because it was the eve of trial. All of this would show to the jury a negative impression of Byrne’s case, by showing that Byrne’s legal team did not believe in his own case. The combination of lack of readiness and appearance of associate counsel with a “Free Palestine” pin seemed to possibly cross the line into deliberate sabotage. Her pantsuit was covered in cat hair. This is not compatible with taking a case in Federal Court seriously especially involving national security issues and high profile media attention.
As Law&Crime has reported, Byrne did not show up to court in person but fired his lawyers as trial was set to begin, “misconduct” that has since led to sanctions. Byrne subsequently failed to convince Wilson to let Lambert and Ticktin represent him pro hac vice in a state jurisdiction where they are not licensed, leaving him a pro se defendant.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
Lambert — a Michigan lawyer who was indicted for allegedly trying to tamper with voting machines used in the 2020 election and who was previously disqualified from representing Byrne in a Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit for “relentless misconduct” — and Florida’s Ticktin — one of the attorneys sanctioned in Donald Trump’s failed RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton — have maintained that Byrne should be allowed to have the “counsel of choice” on the case.
To do anything other than that, the lawyers said while failing to sway the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, is a “severe violation of [Byrne’s] constitutional rights.”
While Lambert was denied pro hac vice admission from the start, Ticktin was briefly allowed on the case “for a day or two” — before Biden’s attorneys urged the judge to reverse himself, which Wilson then did.
That, Ticktin said, created the very situation Biden complained about, calling it “a tempest of Mr. Biden’s own making.”
“[I]t was the Plaintiff Biden who caused the removal of the Defendant Byrne’s attorneys, creating the problem here,” Ticktin wrote. “Regardless of whether that was right or wrong, Mr. Biden surely had to consider the likely effect of further delay to the case.”
The filing three times misspelled Byrne’s last name as “Bryne.”
Byrne separately filed a declaration calling Ticktin a “talented trial lawyer” and Lambert’s expertise “needed to try this case due to her specialized knowledge” as he awaits Biden’s motion for a default judgment on damages, which will follow Wilson’s Oct. 8 pro forma entry of a default against the defendant.
When Law&Crime previously asked Ticktin about his and Lambert’s appellate attempts to represent Byrne, he criticized Murphy and referred to his associate as “woke.”
“Patrick Byrne and his attorneys were ready to proceed on the date of trial. Unfortunately, one of his attorneys brought a woke associate who was dressed inappropriately, and he was not prepared. As a result, that attorney and his associate were terminated on the spot,” Ticktin said, adding the judge’s reversal in Biden’s favor had “created an untenable situation.”
Law&Crime reached out to Murphy for comment.
