A dropped attorney, and now a court order telling that same attorney to disclose false claims. The docket's writing its own consequences today. This is Banker Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Watch — and an officer of the court just got told to come clean. Now we find out who gets hit by the splash. This one comes via Hindustan Times. Hindustan Times is leading with a 'major blow' to Hajdini today — and I want to know which filing earns that headline before we run with it. Because 'major blow' can mean a few things here — her defamation countersuit against Rana taking on water, her defense posture weakening, or her standing as a co-defendant next to JPMorgan slipping. Those aren't interchangeable. And that distinction is the whole ballgame, Sarah. If it lands on her as a co-defendant, then we watch whether JPMorgan's still standing next to her — or quietly stepping back. When international press starts leading with her legal setback instead of the harassment count? That tells you which way the wind's blowing on who the bank decides to protect. But notice what's vanishing from the coverage — the racial-harassment count. Every 'major blow' headline is about the harassment track, and that allegation keeps sliding off the page. From Jesse Weber:
A Manhattan judge has approved a request from a lawyer to drop his client in the high-profile Wall Street sex scandal case. However, the judge ruled the attorney must disclose to JPMorgan whether any false statements were made in the original lawsuit filed by ex-JPMorgan banker Chirayu Rana.
The order has teeth. The judge let the attorney withdraw, but conditioned it — he has to tell JPMorgan whether false statements went into Rana's original filing. Credit to Jesse Weber's panel for getting Rich Schoenstein to spell out what's in scope. And it gets specific: statements made under oath about the plaintiff's mother's occupation, and about internal JPMorgan settlement talks. Schoenstein called it correcting false evidence already in the record. That's an officer of the court being told to come clean about his own client's filing. You don't get a cleaner signal that the case has a credibility problem at the foundation. And watch the venue play — new attorneys want out of state court, into federal court, with a fresh judge. Schoenstein basically said it: they don't like this judge and they want a reset. You reset when the current table isn't going your way. Reasonable read. Though a venue change doesn't erase a disclosure order — whatever the former lawyer says about those false claims follows the case wherever it lands. If you've got feedback, a story idea, or a correction for us, send a note to bankerlawsuitwatch at lantern podcasts dot com. We read what comes in, and it helps shape future briefings.
We've put links to every story from today's episode in the show notes, so you can dig into what stood out or read the source material for yourself. That's Banker Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Watch for today. This is a Lantern Podcast.