WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti’s appeal regarding his criminal convictions for attempting to extort sportswear company Nike. This decision upholds Avenatti’s extortion and fraud convictions, ensuring that his legal battles and penalties will persist.

In a brief court order, it was noted that conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in the decision. While the court provided no specific explanation, it is speculated that Kavanaugh's involvement in Avenatti’s contentious confirmation hearing could be a reason. During that period, Avenatti represented one of several women who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, allegations that Kavanaugh denied.

Avenatti was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for the Nike extortion plot. At his sentencing, he apologized, stating that he was “deeply humbled.” The case originated in 2019 when Avenatti represented a youth basketball coach in Los Angeles who claimed that Nike made unlawful payments to high school athletes. At that time, Avenatti was also grappling with significant financial difficulties, including millions of dollars in judgments and the eviction of his law firm from its office.

During negotiations with Nike’s lawyers, Avenatti pressured the company to not only pay his client but also to hire him and another lawyer to conduct an internal investigation. He allegedly threatened to publicize the allegations if Nike did not comply. This led to Avenatti being charged with two counts of extortion and one count of fraud under a federal law targeting illegal kickbacks by requiring individuals to provide “honest services.” A jury found him guilty on all three counts, and an appeals court later upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court has previously expressed skepticism about the scope of the honest services fraud statute. For example, it overturned the conviction of an aide to former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo last year, questioning the statute’s breadth.

Michael Avenatti has been a prominent media figure over the years. One of his most notable clients was adult film star Stormy Daniels, whom he represented in her effort to nullify a nondisclosure agreement concerning her alleged sexual encounter with former President Donald Trump. Trump is currently on trial for allegations that he violated New York law by making hush money payments to Daniels.

The Nike case is not Avenatti’s only legal issue. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison for defrauding clients out of millions of dollars and to four years in prison for stealing money from Daniels. He is currently serving his sentence at a federal prison in California, with a scheduled release date of August 2035.

This latest Supreme Court decision underscores the judiciary’s position on Avenatti’s actions and the legal consequences of attempting to leverage allegations against Nike for personal gain. It also highlights the broader legal context in which individuals like Avenatti operate, where the boundaries of legal practice, ethical conduct, and criminal behavior are continually examined and enforced.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Avenatti’s appeal marks another chapter in the extensive legal saga of a lawyer who once gained fame and notoriety through high-profile cases and media appearances. His convictions for extortion and fraud remain intact, reinforcing the serious repercussions of using legal threats for personal enrichment. As Avenatti continues to serve his sentences, his case serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of unethical behavior in the legal profession.

Avenatti’s dramatic fall from a high-profile attorney to a convicted felon illustrates the potential consequences of ethical breaches and illegal conduct. His multiple convictions serve as a stark reminder that the legal system demands high standards of integrity and accountability from practitioners. The enduring media attention on his cases emphasizes the public’s interest in and demand for justice in instances of professional misconduct. As he continues to face the ramifications of his actions, Avenatti’s story will likely remain a reference point in discussions about legal ethics and the importance of maintaining professional integrity.