In a dramatic attempt to halt Hunter Biden’s defamation lawsuit from defaulting against former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, two attorneys, previously barred from representing Byrne in the California proceedings, argue that courtroom attire may have intentionally botched the case. These lawyers suggest that the clothing choice of an associate from Byrne’s former legal team could be interpreted as “deliberate sabotage.”

On Wednesday, Peter Ticktin filed a petition on behalf of himself, Stefanie Lambert, and Byrne. The petition requests a pause in the lawsuit until the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. In this document, the attorney refrained from naming the “associate counsel” of attorney Michael Murphy.

Ticktin criticized this unnamed associate for appearing in court dressed in a pantsuit “covered in cat hair,” paired with “old muddy tennis shoes,” and accessorized with a “Free Palestine” pin. This appearance occurred just one day before U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson canceled the late July trial over allegations that Byrne made defamatory statements accusing Biden of committing “despicable and treasonous crimes” linked to bribery and Iran.

Ticktin further alleged that Murphy was ill-prepared for the trial, as he failed to review the “contents of the Hunter Biden laptop” intended as evidence. The associate’s attire, Ticktin argued, only underscored this lack of readiness:

As reported by Law&Crime, Byrne did not attend the trial personally and dismissed his legal team just as proceedings were set to commence, actions deemed “misconduct” and resulting in sanctions. Byrne attempted, unsuccessfully, to have Lambert and Ticktin represent him pro hac vice in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed, leaving him to represent himself as a pro se defendant.

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.

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.