Has Diddy’s reputation been destroyed beyond repair due to his sex trafficking case?

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs is still facing more prison time even though he was found not guilty of racketeering and sex trafficking. He was, however, found guilty on charges of transportation for prostitution. Despite the guilty verdict, it is still a significant win for the hip-hop mogul, who was facing life behind bars on the two more serious charges he was on trial for.

There are some chatters in hip-hop circles now that his reputation might be severely damaged as a result of the trial. Although the trial is winding down, his legal troubles are nowhere near over. In addition to his sentencing hearing set for October 3, Diddy is facing numerous civil lawsuits for varying allegations against him.

Diddy also has lawsuits that he filed against other individuals including a defamation suit he filed earlier this year against Miami-based attorney Ariel Mitchell, filed earlier this year. The Bad Boy Records founder accused Mitchell of spreading “outrageous lies” against him.

According to the lawsuit, Mitchell made the allegations during a NewsNation segment with Courtney Burgess. Interestingly, Burgess claimed that he is in possession of 54 pages from Kim Porter’s memoir. He also alleges that the late model gave him 11 flash drives with footage of several celebrities participating in Diddy’s alleged “freak offs” involving individuals who were minors. Kim Porter’s children insist the memoir pages are totally fake.

Mitchell is now asking a judge to dismiss the $50 million lawsuit that the mogul filed against him, citing her role as attorney, according to AllHipHop. Her attorney Steven A. Metcalf II is now arguing that Mitchell didn’t make defamatory statements against Diddy during the segment.

Metcalf said, “In addition to performing her role as an attorney for matters involving the preparation of litigation or for pending litigation, such vicarious attributions concerning Defendant Mitchell violate First Amendment principles separating actual speech from associative liability.”

The attorney added, “Mitchell cannot be said to have acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Photos and videos were produced, leading to a federal subpoena for this specific material. Then the government or members of the Southern District acted in manner to take possession of said materials, and thus the government essentially vouched for its existence of said materials.”

On the other hand, Diddy says the defendant harmed his reputation, his business empire, and his personal life by fabricating the claims in an orchestrated media campaign. Diddy also denied the allegations.