Johnny Depp's Win and the Aftermath

her of creating a hoax surrounding the abuse allegations. They both testified to contradictory facts. It started with slapping um, and it got to be repetitive slaps where he'd hold me um in a position and slapped me multiple times. Never did I myself have reached the point of h striking Misheard in any way, nor have I ever struck any woman in my life. The jury awarded Depth ten million dollars in compensatory damages and five million impunitive damages.

After finding that herd had defamed him by claiming he abused her, The jury awarded her two million dollars in compensatory damages. For Depth's lawyer statement that she created a hoax joining me his name of Romani, President of West Coast Trial Lawyers. How did you see the verdict? Was there a clear winner Johnny Depp one? And it wasn't closed. I would describe it as a complete and total victory,

especially after this humiliating defeat he stuff heard. When you do the sun in the UK to what do you attribute depth success? Here? Two factors likability and credibility. No question that Johnny Depp was the more likable witnesses, both inside the courtroom and in the courtroom of public opinions. But importantly credibility is the reason Amber heard loss. She lied about facts that really had nothing to do with the abuse, but her donating seven million dollars in divorce

pursueding secarity when she didn't do so. The jury didn't buy that she pledged it, not donated it. And even when it came to TMZ and the video that she took on her phone made its way to TMZ, it was leaked obviously by her or someone working in her direction. Similarly, when she fabled for the t r O the temporary restraining order in two thousand and sixteen and TNZ was picked up. It had to come from Amber Heard, So when she lied about these facts, the jurors were free

to disregard her testimony entirely, and they chose to do so. Also, she exaggerated to the extent of her injuries. She told the jurors that she thought Johnny Depp was going to kill her, that death hit her so many times that she lost count the pictures, and even though they did support injuries, they didn't show an attempt to murder our selony assault. So for those reasons, the jurors sided with

death and it chose to punish her. What about the fact that the jury awarded her two million dollars based on some statements that were made by his lawyer. The jury did, surprisingly award Amber Heard two million dollars on only one of her counterclaims. But as you mentioned, it

wasn't a statement made by Death. It was made by depth former divorce lawyer, Adam Waldman, and it related to the two thousand and sixteen incident where l apt were called to their downtown Los Angeles apartment, and specifically, Waldman said that it was a setup and it was a hoax that l APD were called, and it turned out that amber Heard didn't make that phone call, someone from New York did. And amber Heard didn't cooperate with l

apt when they arrived. I think based on those two important facts, the jurors found that, you know, Waldman did the same herbs importantly, because Waldman was acting as death agents, not agents in the term of contacting agent, but the

legal term, because there was a principal agent relationship. Death is responsible for Waldman's defamatory statement as a matter of law, and therefore that two million dollars offset the ten point three five million dollars at these Otherwise, oh, the total judgment will be eight point three five millions in Johnny Depth. Savor Heard and her lawyers have said that Johnny Depp had an advantage here because of his wealth, power, and fame.

There's no question that the public support was overwhelmingly in Johnny depth favor, and some of it was because the factors outside of her control, but some of it was because of her own doing self inflicted wounds or worse errors that I like to call them. So men and women of all generations love Johnny Depp. He's a handsome, charming, charismatic guy. Be they've in fans of his acting for decades heard also is the face of the me too movement that a lot of men unfortunately thinks has gone

too far. But obviously this is a legal case and it should be tried in the courtroom, and the decisions to these based on the evidence, observes or people. And there's no question that Herd was less likable and that she lost the pr battle. And because Johnny Depp was so credible, he was still vulnerable. He talked about his own shortcoming, his drug and alcohol abuse, the physical abuse he suffered the hands of his parents. It's very open and very transparent, and he owned up to a lot

of his mistakes. But Himble Herd denied everything. She denied ever striking depth, except for one incident. She really minimized her drug use just like he's one ton of airplane with a flight attendant, when it was clear that she was also using substances of death. And I think if Herd had gn a more balanced approach and she had said that she was also verbally abusive, this is a mutually violent relationship. They were both victims, they were both perpetrators.

I think that would have been a pass to victory. But for her in statistic extreme positions. You didn't accept any responsibility for anything that happened during the course of the relationship, and I think as a result, people didn't find her likable or credited. Why do you think he lost the UK case where the standard for libel is less than it is here, and yet he won this case. What made the difference? It's very surprising standard is higher

for a planet here in the United States. We talked about that clear and convincing standard because John, that's the public figure, has to show actual malice, whereas in the UK, verden is on the defendant the sons to prove that the statements were substantially true. That's why a lot of legal compensators, including myself, thought that it was a mistake for him to file directly against her here in the

United States and he would lose again. What turns out this was both an extraordinary legal comeback but really public relations genius moved by doing so. You know, my twenty years of practice, I've never seen someone come back like this. How much was it the lawyering? It seemed like Herd's lawyers were just out lawyered by Depth's team. They were obviously Heard made her mistakes for her lawyers similarly made a number of strategic legal mistakes. We can go through them.

The most important which one They ran out of time? Um, they used far too much time doing a very slow crosses examination during Depth take in chiefs. In fact, when Depth team initially rested, hers lawyers had to use more time than Depth did, so they ran out of time and to go through witness quickly and the end, and couldn't call witnesses if they wanted to call. Other strategic mistakes include, frankly, Elaine bedehof handling Camille bass As his

objections very poorly. Someone who's a practicing law for almost four years is a basic evidentiary objection Where you learned and your specond her of law school And for anyone who followed the trial on TV or on social media, it's clear that she was unable to reformulate a question to overcome the objections. You know, there were a few in the person witnesses supporting Amber Heard and deposition testimony isn't the same. Remember herself testified waitning here to testify.

There were some paid experts to show us in person, but everyone else testified. Your video tape deposition and it is not the thing. Um. Similarly, they focused too much on drug and alcohol abuse, and it's clear that Johnny does have a substance. To these films who've admitted it. This is the case of physical violence, case for sexual violence. That should have been the focus, not the fact that Amber and Johnny were arguing and you know he would get swungs and you know abuse tou So they really

lost their focus. And frankly, they don't really control their clients. You know, Amber heard had testified to fully that she intended to donate seven million dollars to charity, but you know, ranting to financial problems and you know, I had to keep the money and she was embarrassed, and that's why she allied, since that would come across much more credible. UM. Similarly, she admitted to leaking the video of CMD because she wanted the public support because everyone likes Johnny Depp, and

then that would have been more believable. And they so both the legal strategy was for and in terms of prepping the witness to testify, I think they did not do as good as a job as they could. Happen, didn't make a difference that they brought the case that Depp brought the case in Virginia instead of California. It did. It made a big difference because First Amendment laws and more friendly here in Los Angeles, California, where I practice.

There's something that's called an anti slap statches that allowed the judges tend to be liberal here in Los Angeles to dismiss definations before they go to a jury trial. Never strong here. The next to the best venue would have been New York for the A C l U, which is pretty liberal as well Northern Virginia where the

Washington Posted headquarters and their servers are. It's not a bad venue for defendant in a defamation case, but it's probably not as of l A or York tends to be a more of a purple state in terms of

the dury pool. So it was somewhat favorable for death but certainly not a favorable as the UK does the same as if the jury really carefully considered each claim separately and follow the judge's instructions, it's questionable that they understood the damages portion because they did return the verdict on one claim without a new damages So this is a complicated case, there's three alleged defamatory statements on both

sides that higher burden approved, there's alice compensatory damages, there's punitive damages. This look they ultimately got it right, but at least during the initial verdict that they completed, and they must have been some complete would you surprise that they came back for punitive damages when, as you said, it appeared to be a mutually abusive relationship in a lot of respects. Anytime you proved intentional conduct or reckless

conduct punitives on play. Obviously, to prove malice depths, Plays had to prove that heard knew she was lying when she published the statement, or she acted in a reckless disregard for the truth. That being said, you know, five million dollars and punitive damages when Johnny Depp Players didn't ask for any specific damage amount during closing was surprising to me and one of the reasons why I believe

this was an overwhelming win for Johnny Depp. This is one case based on the unique facts here, but a lot of legal experts are saying it will have a chilling effect on women coming forward in the future to bring cases of domestic violence there's a huge step back. Let's be honest, sexual assaults domestic violence, those are two

of the most hunder reported clients in the country. Women are hesitant to come forward, and there's many reasons, but one of the primary reasons is the disparity and power and wealth. Oftentimes the men that are used their athletes, they're entertainers, of politicians, their CEOs, their men have significant means. And now women find themselves in a position where they

may be sued by the men that they're accusing. And the men have hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to subject them to civil litigation and also higher attorneys to defend themselves, and they may not have that money. So it's going to give them one more reason to potentially not report the abuse to the assaults for law enforcement or medical personnel. I think it will also emboldened

men who file these text to cases. I mean, it's all started really with President Trump, who's defamation lawsuits to really pressure its political adversaries. And I'm not comparing death to the former president, but you know, to the sense that men are accused and they think that's been falsely accused. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, and we're going to see copycat litigation. There's no doubt in my mind her it is going to appeal. What are her

chances it will be up to a battle. I don't see any good legal basis for appeal the rest of the illegal error. And I know they've talked about the UK judgment not coming in and some of the social media presidents, but I don't think the judges of anything wrong. The UK case is obviously different case, different parties, and heard looking a party to that case, different law that applies, but really has no presidential impacts here, really social media,

not much the judge can do. The judged that potentially sequestioned the juror that rarely, if ever happens in a civil case. You just don't have the same rights that you do as a criminal defendant. Um And apparently there

was some evidence that was excuted. But what I saw from the judge is the judges scouted a lot of the good evidence for Johnny depth but the Kate Moss and the Seattle police officer so imember her to open the door and talked about Kate Moss and says that she had never been abused as towards the next so and the judge called it pretty fairly. You can't appeal a factual decision by a jury, such as credibility issues

and those types of things. So I understand why Amber Heard is going to appeal because you know, her back is up against the wall and she needs to clear her name. And she's now probably one of the most despised women in America right now because of this case in social media. So this is her one chance and as opposed to trying to negotiate a lesser payout and exchange for the waves of the feel I do expect that appeals to happen, but I don't think the appeal

will be heard. Will appeal interestful accrue on the judgment while that appeals attending. And importantly, because death proved that the defamatory statements were intentional, not only heeded a damages, but the claims aren't dischargeable in bankrupt So Abho is not going to go file after seven or eleven and get out of this judgment. This is a non dischargeable judgment.

No thanks, NeiMa. That's trial lawyer NeiMa Romani. Neither a mountain of litigation nor a new pro worker law in California have caused sweeping changes in strip clubs, so the dancers are turning to unions as a way to improve their conditions. Joining me is Aaron mulveney, Bloomberg Law senior reporter who has researched and written about this issue. Why is there an effort to unionize strippers? The push for a union in California um goes back to something that

actually is a nationwide practice with strip clubs. These answers are largely classified. The practices are pretty uniform that they would be classified as independent contractors, which on one hand, means that all of the tips that the dancers are and they get to take home and that's their go home pay, and a lot of dancers historically have said that that means that they can take home up to

a fifteen hundred dollars a night. But through hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits filed in recent years, there has been an issue with that classification because if you're an independent contractor, you don't have the right to workers compensation if you're injured,

and minimum wage over time. And then there are a lot of practices that are also problematic where clubs will charge stage fees to dance, and so you could technically end up in the red if customers don't show up, or you don't get tips that night, or you don't

get a desirable shift. And of course this is a broad brush, but there have been many losses over the years nationwide that have said that dancers have been exploited, have been harassed, have been in really dangerous working conditions, and have little rights because of the way they're classified.

And then into this situation in California, there's a law that was passed that makes it much harder for most businesses to classify workers this way, and a lot of strippers that I spoke to said the strip club haven't necessarily changed their practices. And the other thing that's been going on is that the pandemic made it much harder with the customer base being a lot slower and the

club's meeting more dancers. And there have just been a lot of problems with pushback in the workplace where workers don't really feel like they have the same rights or respect other workers. And it's things that are sadly very entrenched in the system. As far as you know, the bad working conditions tell us about some of the problems they have on stage, at least for some of the

strippers who are dancing at some of these clubs. They say that there have been unsafe conditions on the stage where the stage isn't built properly while they're dancing, or there has been glass on the floor that hasn't been

cleaned up or addressed. Other safety conditions are less direct like that, and there might be if a customer across the line and they feel like their safety is at risk, which I think happens in the stutting where there's alcohol involved, and that in the nature of sex work sometimes could draw that out. But you know, again, these women or men are workers and they deserve respect and protection in the workplace just like anybody else. They don't have workers

comp to fall back on if they get injury. I'm wondering if it's harder to unionize strippers as opposed to other kinds of workers. You talk to Selena, the president of the independent union Strippers United, and she said strippers are treated like they aren't valuable, and they've internalized that. They don't always see themselves as deserving of rights. What's the Lena expressed after speaking with a lot of different dancers around the state in California is that they are

all experiencing similar problems. But the way that these strip clubs have operated in the past, dancers, they've often been independent and they fear often retaliation if they speak out. And so these are things that are really counter to what a union is all about, you know, joining together

as workers. So what the leaders of the union effort are trying to do is change the DNA of of how these dancers think about themselves as workers and valuing themselves and the respect that they deserve, because honestly, there wouldn't be strip clubs about these dancers, and they face a lot of dangerous working conditions in so many ways. But often at least Selina says, she hears a lot of stories about more dramatic exploitation than you might hear

about in other industries. The labor push in Californi and it comes against what you, right, is a backdrop of a mountain of litigation. Just tell us a little about

that litigation. Sure, So it also goes back to what I was explaining about how a lot of the practices around the country rely on independent contractor relationships and that has there was kind of a wave of lawsuits that we're targeting strip clubs of at the last decade because there are violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act potentially, and and Austin strippers have won these fights, you know, against individual strip clubs and one major settlements around the country,

and these have been happening pretty frequently. What we see though is that, you know, the strip clubs can pay a settlement, but practices have largely remained uniform throughout the industry. And part of it is because strippers can make a lot of take home pay, but with that they lose a safety net that like an employment relationship would have. So you have lawsuits on one hand, but you're not

seeing dramatic change in the industry. Over the years, several courts have ruled that strippers are legally employees under wage and our laws, not independent contractors. But are you saying that the strip clubs don't honor that right? And there are so many strip clubs. There are major franchises though, for example, um one of the largest is Deja Vu, and I spoke with the CEO of that company and what he has told me before is in the settlements where a court has ruled or settled that they do

need to change their classification to employees. So many of his competitors do not change their classification and he loses dancers or the club isn't profitable enough. So I think would need to happen on a broader scale in order to completely change Can you give us a little more

detail about why legislation isn't the answer? So for this article, I spoke with a lot of attorneys who hear from strippers and dancers themselves, and strip club opera waters and so I can't speak for every single strip club in California, but the state law that was intended to change my classification to contractors, according to these people, these stakeholders that

I spoke to haven't necessarily changed their practices. They'll create contracts to make dancers owners of the club or charge them for rent time on the stage, and arguably those could be subject to a lawsuit, but they might be too small to be worth it to a plainists firm, and that would be the way that that would be enforced.

So yes, I think that a lot of strip clubs haven't changed their practices, even in California where there are much stricter worker protections currently, and a lot of the dancers who have become employees are finding themselves with part time work as opposed to getting to work longer and make more money potentially, and they'll have to be scheduled, they might not get a desirable time. So Selena, for example, told me that she thinks things have gotten worse to

some extent for the dancers. Let's talk about the other side of the story, because you talked to some strip club operators and tell us what they claim about clubs

shutting down and people losing out on work. So the CEO of Deja Zu spoke to me, and that's one of the largest strip club operators in the US, and he said seven of his clubs in California became unprofitable and after the new law that we were discussing in California and after settlements required him to classify dancers as employees, and dancers of those clubs only get part time shifts, which obviously is less ideal than a full employment um

job and relationship, because that's when you would get access to full benefits. He also spoke of losing dancers to competitors who still have the traditional independent contractor relationship, and from his perspective, he thinks that the employment model doesn't offer what the strip club business needs, including for the dancers themselves. Has there ever been a unionized strip club? Yes, there was an effort in San Francisco and a strip club called The Lusty Lady was the first unionized club

in the United States. It really stood alone, but it did show that it was possible. It closed in two thousand thirteen and there hasn't been another one since until this recent push at this club in Los Angeles. Yeah, so why did they target this particular club? Star Garden Topless Dive Bar. I did have the opportunity to talk to someone who worked at Star Garden. She asked me to go by her stage named Lilith, and Lilith had an experience that speaks to why it could be difficult

to unionize these strip clubs. She said that she did notice problems but didn't speak to her other co workers about them. And then there were a few things that they claim happened where they felt that very prominent dancers were retaliated against for speaking about safety conditions or unruly customers, and they were fired and not given shifts. Any longer. And she said those incidents sparked these dancers to come together and to talk about things that they had in common.

And Selena said that it was the first good effort because they were a small group of tight knit group and they kind of had the passion to understand what a union could possibly do to improve their conditions. And they sent a petition to the owners which they felt like was not received, and they started picketing and they've been doing that UM for the last couple of months in the hopes of being the first union since that effort.

And I think that the hope for Stripes United, which is the kind of the grassroots independent labor organization for these strippers, is that this union will show others that it's possible to join together and start trying to change the brain chemistry of some of the dancers who were so used to being independent and autonomous. Karin, what do they have to do? Do you know what the next

step is toward forming a union. They'll have to go through the traditional UM process through the National Labor Relations Board, and they'll have to go through a union election, and and they're in the early stages of that process and getting it together. It's definitely the early stage of the union effort. As far as class actions, they have been successful in the past, but people are not bringing them anymore,

not necessarily, we're still seeing them nationwide. I spoke to a couple of plaintiffs attorneys who have brought these cases in the past and still here from dancers, and they

won major settlements against some of the major operators. But these attorneys speculated that a lot of the smaller operators could be falling through the cracks potentially based on the dancers stories, and if they're small enough clubs, they might not be worth it to some of the larger plaintiffs firms that would bring a class action case because it's not a big operator that has a twenty clubs that they run, and that would mean that many more dancers that could be part of it, and that that much

more of a large settlement. So I think that's potentially the speculation at this point. We saw a lot of major settlements in two thousand nineteen, and there are some indications that that has flowed since in California specifically, but we have seen major settlements around the country that are brought under the Federal Labor laws those are still continuing. Are they just trying to unionize in California or are they trying to unionize in some of the other states

where they've had, you know, large settlements. Currently, I only know of California and this effort. It's partially because of this, this grassroots group that has really focused for for many years on trying to on trying to bring dancers together. What I find really sad is that in your story, so many dancers don't want to be identified by their real name because they fear retaliation. Absolutely. What I hear is that they fear retaliation from the club owners or

the industry. Other dancers. They are willing to talk to the press, but they've also been abused by the press in a lot of ways, and I think that that is a reality of people not really always seeing sex workers as workers. But they don't dislike their jobs, they dislike being treated as lesser and so I think that right now, the reason that they asked me to call them by their stage names, I respected because they said they could experience retaliation from strip clubs, and that's the

work that they're trying to do right now. Thanks Sarah, that's Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter Aaron mulvaney, and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg