Daily Archives - Proof with Jill Stanley

Outpatient Surgery Centers and Medical Malpractice: The End of Joan Rivers

Celebrity Lawsuits, Daily, Joan Rivers, Melissa Rivers

At 81, Joan Rivers was enjoying something of a Hollywood rebirth. At the helm of the television show, Fashion Police, her wry commentary was garnering fans of all ages, all over the world. To anyone with a set of working eyes it was more than obvious that Joan was not one to shy away from cosmetic surgery. She regularly admitted that she had lots of it—from a face-lift to a neck lift to eye surgery, among many other procedures. So, on September 4, 2014 when she visited the Yorkville Endoscopy Clinic (hereinafter “the Clinic”) for an endoscopy no one was worried that anything would go wrong with this pretty routine procedure, after all, she was a frequent visitor to the operating room. But sadly, things did go wrong, terribly wrong. Joan went into cardiac arrest on the operating room table, was rushed to Mount Sinai Hospital, and died a week later.

In 2015, Melissa Rivers, Joan’s daughter, who has appeared on television with her mother, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in New York. In that suit, Melissa claimed that doctors performed unauthorized medical procedures, took a selfie in the operating room with Joan while she was anesthetized, and failed to act as her vital signs deteriorated. Specifically, the suit alleged that doctors performed a laryngoscopy on Joan’s vocal cords, a procedure for which they did not have consent. Moreover, apparently the anesthesiologist in the operating room that day voiced concern as to what that procedure would do to Joan’s ability to breathe, but that Lawrence Cohen, the gastroenterologist performing the endoscopy, summarily dismissed that concern. The Clinic and the doctors involved initially denied all of the allegations (Though in November 2014 the Clinic did confirm that Dr. Cohen was not currently performing medical procedures there nor was he serving as the Clinic’s medical director).

In May 2016, the Clinic settled Melissa’s lawsuit for a confidential amount. Given Joan’s earning capacity, even at the age of 81, combined with the facts surrounding her death I can tell you that the settlement was likely very substantial. It is important to note that despite the Clinic’s initial denial of wrongdoing and the fact that the settlement is confidential (Post settlement Melissa stated that the Clinic did ultimately admit fault) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services performed an investigation in connection with Joan’s death. Those records are public and what they found was this: the Clinic did not have properly recorded medication records, the doctors did take those alleged selfies, the Clinic had not received informed consent for all of the procedures they performed on Joan that day, and the staff hadn’t recorded the comedian’s weight before sedating her (weight is one factor anesthesiologists consider when determining the amount of anesthesia required). Moreover, it should be noted that in 2015, because the Clinic failed to correct deficiencies implicated in her death they were prohibited from having its services paid for by Medicare and Medicaid funds. What exactly are the people at Yorkville Endoscopy thinking? Disgraceful. There is no doubt that Melissa was relieved to settle the matter rather than endure litigation—it would have been long and emotional. And the fact that those selfies remained protected and not released to the public is also a good thing.

As you may know by now about me and about PROOF, in general, we try to find some good in even the most tragic of situations, so if there is to be one positive thing to come out of Joan’s death it is that Melissa Rivers has stated that she “will work towards ensuring higher safety standards in out-patient surgical clinics.” That work is very important as according to a 2011 study by the Journal of American Medical Association the proportion of successful lawsuits filed by outpatients or their families has reached 43% of total malpractice suits and is growing: In 2009, more than half of adverse events leading to malpractice suits occurred in outpatient setting, resulting in settlements that added up to $1.3 billion.” With so much work clearly to be done in this area, having a powerful voice like that of Melissa Rivers behind the fight is impactful. We are sorry for your loss Melissa and Cooper, we were big fans. Rest in peace, Joan Rivers.

Wolf of Wall Street and War Dogs Lawsuits | Celeb News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Wolf of Wall Street and War Dogs: More in Common than Jonah Hill

Celebrity Lawsuits, Daily

The Wolf of Wall Street and War Dogs are big budget films that involve big money, big drug use and . . . Jonah Hill. While all of that is enough to make these cautionary tales about excess and greed (Why is it that I can’t write the word greed without an image popping into my mind of Michael Douglas shouting Greed is Good to a packed room?) successful in Hollywood terms it also has been enough to have both films deeply embroiled in another American institution—the justice system.

Let’s talk first about The Wolf of Wall Street. The two lawsuits the 2013 film is facing face are quite varied and interesting.

Andrew Greene, one of Jordan Belfort’s (“the Wolf” as it were) colleagues is suing Paramount Pictures and The Wolf of Wall Street filmmakers for defamation. Greene claims that the character in the movie, Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff is based on him and inaccurately and unfairly represents him. In the film, Rugrat is the toupee wearing, drug abusing, Belfort follower who is seen in the film being teased about his hair, or lack thereof. In real life, Greene worked at Stratton Oakmont, was in Belfort’s inner circle, was known by the nickname “Wigwam” and wore a toupee (Note, he’s toupee-less now and sports a shiny, bald, head.) Despite all the reports of wild times at Stratton Oakmont, Greene claims he never acted like Rugrat—he didn’t drink, do coke, take ‘ludes or enjoy X-rated private plane rides. He even has gone so far as to say he thought Belfort’s treatment of women was “highly offensive.” Most importantly and critical to making a defamation claim, Greene says he has suffered damage as a result of this erroneous depiction and that he has had a hard time getting work since the movie came out. (Greene first tried to block the movie from release; clearly that didn’t happen.) The legal goings-on in this lawsuit are actually very complex and though some of Greene’s claims have been dismissed, others remain live and viable. So much so that Martin Scorsese, the director of The Wolf of Wall Street and Terrence Winter, the screenwriter, have given depositions in the matter. Leonardo DiCaprio, whose production company, Appian Way produced the film along with Paramount Picture, has been ordered to provide testimony, but due to Leo’s busy travel and work schedule, his deposition has not yet been taken. Greene’s lawyers aren’t sitting idly by waiting for a break in Leo’s Cannes-Cabo-Capri travel schedule. In June 2016 they asked the court to order that Leo sit for a deposition. That motion was granted; but, still, so far, Leo has not been sworn in to tell the truth with a court reporter present. Not that any of us will get to read the deposition transcript or see the video if it’s filmed. No doubt Leo’s lawyers will see to it that it is sealed and under a protective order.

The second lawsuit involving The Wolf of Wall Street is much more pervasive. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a 136 page civil complaint claiming that as a result of well-connected fraudulent individuals more than $3 billion (yes, that’s billion with a “B”) was stolen from the Malaysian people and used, among other things, to fund production of The Wolf of Wall Street, a film which allegedly cost more $100 million to make. Specifically, the US government seeks civil forfeiture (this is a civil not a criminal case currently so no prison time for anyone if convicted) of some of those assets, namely profits from the 2013 film. Bit ironic, no? A film about fraud, which made close to $400 million the subject of this type of lawsuit? And the really sad part? According to Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell, “the Malaysian people never saw a penny of profit from that film.”

And now on to War Dogs. This suit is kind of like the suit against the Wolf of Wall Street filmmakers and kind of not. I write this not to confuse you but so that you can easily see the distinctions. Yes, an individual (through his own entertainment company) is suing and claiming violation of his likeness but here the claim isn’t that a reputation is being sullied, rather the plaintiff preferred that he, not Warner Brothers, be the one to address his reputation in a public forum. Yup, that’s it. Efraim Diveroli, the former arms dealer upon whom the film War Dogs is based is suing for breach of a non-disclosure agreement, misappropriation of his likeness rights and conversion of confidential and proprietary information. Diveroli is claiming that before Warner Brothers was doing a film about him and his life, he had already met with a Hollywood producer in an effort to sell the rights to the 360 page screenplay he wrote called “Once a Gun Runner.” The problem was that while he was in prison for the very crimes he allegedly wrote about, Rolling Stone published an article by reporter, Guy Lawson, called Arms and the Dudes that tells the story of Diveroli (Lawson then published a book on the topic with the same title.). It is Arms and the Dudes that formed the basis of War Dogs according to Warner Brothers. They believe they are not at fault because they legally securing the rights from Guy Lawson to make a film based on Arms and Dudes and that Diveroli didn’t start writing his life story until months after their deal with Lawson was publicized. Moreover, Warner Brothers isn’t seeking ownership of Diveroli’s story at any level. In fact they’ve gone so far as saying that if Diveroli doesn’t like how War Dogs came out, he should tell his story himself.

Warner Brothers has asked the court to dismiss the case; and, in doing so they’ve broken out the big guns in support of their motion: The Constitution. Warner Brothers says War Dogs is protected by the First Amendment. How so? Well, that’s where Anti-SLAPP comes in (Their motion to dismiss is based on Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and the purpose of it is to stop malicious or frivolous lawsuits that chill free speech). Warner Brothers argued that War Dogs story is a matter of public interest and therefore the film is protected speech. In their motion, they stated, “Movies generally — and especially those that dramatize front-page news events — are shielded by the First Amendment, and no person has an exclusive right to tell or to shape such stories.” So far no ruling on the motion to dismiss but I have seen War Dogs and have read the filings. I’m on Warner Brothers side on this one.

And, we at Proof want to say a big thank you to Jonah Hill for starring in movies that keep us up to date on the never-ending tales of greed and avarice. Thanks, Jonah!

3 Nasty Neighborhood Disputes | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

3 Nasty Celebrity Neighbor Disputes

Ashley Greene, Celebrity News, Daily, Justin Bieber, Life, Minnie Driver, Top Stories

Minnie Driver. Poor Minnie, only in her new house a few months when her neighbors, the Perelmutters, start complaining about use of a shared driveway (usage that had already been resolved in a 2008 lawsuit in which they were involved). The Perelmutters are alleging that Minnie has thrown baby food jars full of black paint at their house, has prevented access to parts of their home, has hurled expletives at them and, according to an Amended Complaint filed August 2, 2016, are suing her for assault, trespass, private, nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Minnie obtained a temporary restraining order against Perelmutter in Spring 2016 based on allegations that he blew smoke in her son’s face and cursed at them. And, in September 2016, filed a cross complaint against the Perelmutters. This one is going to stay pretty ugly.
Update: A judge agreed with Minnie Driver and on January 18, 2017, Perelmutter was ordered to knock down the wall he built as well as perform 10 days of community service. Perelmutter has until April 2017 to comply; if he doesn’t, he’s off to jail.
Justin Bieber. Living near the “Sorry” star in theory, sounds like it would be pretty fun but ,most know now that reality of being the Biebs’ neighbor is less than well, neighborly. Kristen Bell and Dax Shepherd compared living next to him like “living in Lebanon” and former NFL wide receiver Keyshawn Johnson called the 19-year-old “entitled,” as he described how Bieber speeds up and down the street, and spits on people in the neighborhood. Finally, in 2015 some neighbors did something about it. Jeffrey and Suzanne Schwartz have sued Bieber and his bodyguards for harassing them and their family, vandalizing their house with eggs and threatening them with anti-Semitic remarks. A trial date has not yet been set.
Ashley Greene. Though she seems to have won the hearts of many as Edward Cullen’s sister, Alice, in Twilight, this Hollywood star is not so beloved by her neighbors or doorman at her former West Hollywood apartment. She was sued by them as a result of a fire allegedly caused by a candle she left lit in the apartment in March 2013. The neighbors specifically alleged negligence, emotional distress, nuisance, breach of contract, and trespass and the doorman claimed he sustained injuries while helping tenants escape the burning building. The tenants also said Ashley never apologized for the starting the fire—not a legally actionable claim but an apology may have gone a long way with some of them. The fire was accidental and one of Ashley’s dogs perished in it. In late 2015, Ashley (or more likely, her insurance company) settled the claim for a confidential amount and the entire case was dismissed with prejudice.

Going to Court? Make Sure You’ve Got Your Little Black Dress

Amber Heard, Beauty, Daily, Fashion, Nicole Ritchie, Rihanna

Rocking a sophisticated Little Black Dress (LBD) is somewhat of a female rite of passage thanks to Coco Chanel, who is considered to have first introduced women to this wardrobe necessity. Prior to the 1920s, women only when black when in mourning. In 1926 Chanel changed all of that when her LBD graced the pages of Vogue. The magazine called the dress “Chanel’s Ford,” because like the Model T car, it was accessible to all social classes. From that moment on, black clothes and the LBD were in. Done right, the LBD is supremely chic and is an essential item in a woman’s wardrobe. Fashion icons like Princess Diana, Jackie Kennedy, and Audrey Hepburn, just to name a few have all sported the perfect LBD throughout the decades, and it’s not going out of style any time soon.

The simplicity and elegance of the LBD makes it a go-to choice for many celebrity situations, especially sticky ones–like going to court. Properly advised celebs, like Nicole Ritchie and Amber Heard know that while the LBD demands respect it also shows that the wearer understands her audience. While maintaining an element of glamour, the LBD-wearing celeb is able to communicate her respect for the law without her lawyer or her ever opening her mouth. Rihanna perfected this look in an LA courthouse when she attended the preliminary hearing in which Chris Brown faced charges of assaulting her. Her LBD was stylish enough for the paparazzi outside the courtroom, but modest enough in front of the judge.

Hope You Like Orange, Jerry | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

We Hope You Like Orange, Jerry Sandusky

Athletes, Criminal Law, Daily, Jerry Sandusky, Top Stories

With college football season about to kick off, Jerry Sandusky is back in the news. Yes, the Jerry Sandusky of Paterno and Penn State “fame.” We all thought we were done with this convicted child molester thanks to the 30-60 year sentence that was handed down in 2012 but alas, no. Just this week, Sandusky took the stand at a hearing in which he sought to have his conviction overturned or at least receive a new trial. Based on what you ask? In layman’s terms, he is arguing that his lawyer was so bad that it resulted in him being wrongly convicted and, at the very least, Jerry should have another chance to prove his innocence. These types of appeals, based on what is referred to as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, are not easily won—even appeals based on lawyers who were sleeping during a trial have not been found to have been ineffective! So, Sandusky’s claim that his lawyer never really explained to him what it meant for him not to testify or that he gave him bad advice when he allowed him to be interviewed on camera by Bob Costas (Really? You were an assistant coach at a college football powerhouse for 30 years and you didn’t know the effect of an interview with a well-known sportscaster?) are not likely to sway the judge. The fact is judges generally defer to trial court findings. So, orange is definitely remaining the new black for you Jerry. No way you win this one.

Billy Bush Terminated | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Did NBC Make the Right Decision Terminating Billy Bush?

Billy Bush, Daily, Donald Trump, Top Stories

PROOF Answer: Yes

In August 2016, Billy Bush, former Access Hollywood reporter, was hired to cover the third hour of the popular NBC morning show, The Today Show. This was a big feather in Bush’s cap. But from the start, the relationship was rocky. While in Rio covering the Olympics, it was Bush who first interviewed Ryan Lochte after Lochte lied about being held up at gunpoint in Brazil. Bush failed to question any aspect of Lochte’s story and within hours of Bush’s interview, as the story went viral, it was readily apparent that what Lochte said happened, in fact, didn’t. It was also in Rio that Bush bragged about knowing of footage of Donald Trump “acting like a dog.” Bush’s bravado came back to bite him (pun intended!), because as we all now know after hearing Bush brag about it, Access Hollywood staffers started to look for the footage. And, boy did they find it! Unfortunately for NBC while their lawyers thought about what to do with it, someone at Access Hollywood no longer wanted to sit idly by and leaked the footage to the Washington Post. Soon, the whole world knew exactly what went down on that Access Hollywood bus. Trump clearly was in fact “acting like a dog.” And Billy Bush, ever the celebrity sycophant wasn’t much better. He wasn’t simply agreeing with Trump’s inappropriate comments about women but was encouraging Trump, securing hugs for the both of them—a sort of accomplice, if you will. Or in this instance, loyal frat brother or in Trump lingo, locker room mate. NBC responded by ultimately (note, not immediately) suspending Bush. And now, NBC has terminated Bush and he’s not going back to his desk at The Today Show.

Though Bush’s contract with NBC is not available to the public at the time of this writing what is very likely that there is a morality clause in that contract. What is further clear is that Mr. Bush violated that morality clause by his actions and thereby breached his contract, which gives NBC a legal basis on which to fire him. Morality clauses are standard in employment contracts in the entertainment and news industry. They serve to protect an employer’s legitimate concern with public opinion. This is especially important for journalists ( yes, I know it’s hard to think of Billy Bush as a journalist but technically he is/was) because in order for viewers to trust journalists, to listen to them and to rely on them when they interview guests or discuss topics of national or local importance, credibility is paramount. When that credibility is called into question, as it has been with Billy Bush, employers must and should take action.

Bush’s employment situation was further complicated by the fact that several staffers at NBC have expressed their discontent with him and their desire not to work with him. No doubt these staffers are glad that NBC made permanent Bush’s temporary suspension. NBC simply could not afford to alienate its female staffers by keeping Bush on the job. But even more important to NBC? They couldn’t afford to alienate viewers and, The Today Show, has a very large female audience. Just look at Bush’s Facebook page or read the thousands of comments across various social media platforms and it is without question that if NBC decided to keep Bush on, The Today Show would have suffered in the ratings.

So, from a business perspective, the decision by NBC to terminate Billy Bush wasn’t all that difficult and resolving it all via settlement was smart. All parties now go away relatively peacefully without lawsuits. No Warner Brothers/Charlie Sheen situation here.

6 of the Hottest LA Restaurants Where You Can See Celebs and Their Legal Teams

Daily, George Clooney, James Franco, Jennifer Lopez, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Life, Natalie Portman, Orlando Bloom, Patrick Dempsey, Prince Harry, Reese Witherspoon

In Los Angeles, spotting celebrities are as numerous as juice bars and spin classes. But if you really want to increase your odds of seeing a star with his/her hired gun, head to one of these five hot restaurants:

Gjelina. At this funky Venice restaurant, the food is just as attractive as the people eating it. Gjelina eludes trendiness – perhaps because it doesn’t even have its name on the outside. The impressive menu is California fare at its finest, highlighting seasonal vegetables and artisanal pizzas. This hotspot has attracted A-list celebrities like Natalie Portman and Prince Harry. So relax on the patio with a bottle of Napa Cab, and don’t forget to save room for the butterscotch pot de crème.
Chateau Marmont. This famed hotel in the Hollywood hills was designed to mimic the beautiful Chateau d’Amboise in France. After its opening in 1927, Chateau Marmont became a Hollywood staple. It maintains an old world sense of glamour that regularly attracts celebs such as Lady Gaga and James Franco. Expect to encounter a crowd of paparazzi as you push your way to the picturesque palm tree ringed patio.
Farmshop. This farm-to-table restaurant is located in the Brentwood Country Mart, a high end shopping destination packed with boutiques and dining options. The barn themed mart is nice enough for date night and casual enough for a day with the kids. Join celebrities like Reese Witherspoon and Patrick Dempsey at this casual yet sophisticated restaurant, and be sure to head next door for a scoop of ice cream at Sweet Rose Creamery after.
Culina at the Four Seasons Beverly Hills. From the breathtaking, flower-filled lobby to the Frette linens on the beds, the Four Seasons Beverly Hills maintains an elegant atmosphere that the rich and famous can’t seem to get enough of. But even those who cannot afford rooms starting at $500 per night can follow the lead of Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom and head to Culina for a see-and-be-seen experience at the hotel’s modern Italian restaurant.
The Ivy. Ah the iconic Ivy. The Ivy has attracted celebs like George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez for years with its charming cottage-like décor and upscale American comfort food. Sit on the tree-covered patio for brunch and enjoy freshly baked scones while the valet fights away the paparazzi.
Le Village. Tucked into the Trancas Country Mart in west Malibu this chic restaurant is worth the drive. The kitchen, which serves up American fare, is watched over by the keen eyes of the quintessential French owners, Francois and Marie Clausse. And, who better to keep a secret than the French? You are sure to see celebrity legal tete-a-tetes in this new Malibu spot.

Celebs Under the Influence | Celebrity News | Proof with Jill Stanley

Here’s Why You Don’t See Celebs Under the Influence Getting Jail Time

Athletes, Daily, Life, Top Stories

The number of celebrities who drive while intoxicated is high – no pun intended. That’s because, as I keep saying, at the end of the day, they’re human, and they drive drunk about as much as the rest of the population. The numbers are staggering. According to the Centers for Disease Control, an estimated 4 million U.S. adult respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving. And the State Department reports that in 2011, 1.2 million were arrested for driving under the influence or alcohol or narcotics. But, with regard to drunk driving and the justice system that is where the similarities between celebs and mere mortals end. Why is it that famous people seem to have an easier time “beating” these charges? One main reason: money. Celebs have the financial ability to hire really good lawyers. Can I say that any louder? Money=Rock star Representation. The truth is there’s a difference between a really good lawyer and an average one. As Jesse Lorona, a lawyer known for successfully fighting DUI charges says, “Having the benefit of an aggressive DUI lawyer is critical. The state is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt … the defendant is not required to prove innocence. Our goal is to make sure that when the state fails, our clients are not wrongly convicted. There are many, many ways to defeat a DUI charge.”

Mr. Lorona is correct and if you have the funds to retain these tough, savvy advocates to fight on your behalf, your odds of getting an acquittal or a sweetheart plea deal definitely go up. And, in most states in order to prevail in a DUI/DWI case, it helps to hire an expert witness—which costs money! Generally, this is a toxicologist who will find holes in the government’s case regarding any alcohol level testing that was done. They’ll analyze the test and delve deep into figuring out if the test was performed properly, how much time passed between when it was performed and when the celeb was actually behind the wheel, and if the results were in fact read and interpreted accurately. If the hired witness can help weaken the government’s case, the easier is to get off or get a better plea deal.

Yep. Stars, they’re just like us. Sorry, at PROOF we tell it the way it is.

NB to all: How ‘bout we all just uber or have our assistants drive us where we need to go. Or better yet, just party at home and stay put.

Manis, Minis and Mistakes: What Celebs Need to Know About Courtroom Attire

Beauty, Britney Spears, Celeb News, Celebrity News, Daily, Fashion, Life, Lindsay Lohan, Videos, Watch

Whether it’s a drunk driving charge, shoplifting, a custody battle, or something else, celebs are in court all the time. Some get the right advice (and actually follow it!) and show up to court as if he/she were an eager college grad going on his/her first job interview; others not so much. You probably know whom I am talking about. Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears are the sure-fire “winners” here. Rather than face their legal troubles with grace and respect, these celebs have made some pretty poor choices and sadly made a bit of a mockery of our system.

To be fair, not all of Lindsay’s courtroom attire choices have been bad. She has actually looked pretty appropriate a few times. Let’s face it though, she has had more opportunities than most to do the right thing. And, the bulk of her choices? Not good. If were her lawyer, I would have stashed an LBD in my briefcase, dragged her into the ladies room and made her change each and every time she showed up looking like she was ready for a night of LA clubbing rather than a day in court. The following are the choices that bother me the most. First, without a doubt, that white, skin-hugging Kimberly Ovitz mini dress. Nothing says responsible law-abiding adult like a hot party dress, right? Next, would have to be that “colorful” manicure with the obscene message on her middle finger. Was the F*** U meant for the judge, the system as a whole, or for someone else? Either way, completely inappropriate. If she had just kept her hands below counsel table, she would have been fine, It’s not as if she has to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or anything! And those oh so close looks. The gray pants suit. Classy until Lindsay decided not to button her blouse. That nice beige blazer? Just fine but not when completed with short shorts and booties. Ugh. I’m getting annoyed just thinking about this because they are all such easy fixes and sometimes you just gotta follow the rules. You don’t have to like them, Lindsay, you just have to follow them, especially when there’s something in it for you.

Britney. Oh, Britney. Gosh, there was just so much going on for her personally during the time she was seemingly in and out of court that I can almost excuse some of her choices. But only just almost. That black backless dress for one hearing and lacy, white frock for another? No. I think Britney wants to do the right thing, show respect for the system, as evidenced by some of her better choices but she just doesn’t have the right people telling her what to do in ways that make her want to listen to them. Again, if her lawyers could have been one step ahead of her and brought her something respectable to wear, I am sure she would have worn it. Britney has really cleaned up her life up since those days of the shaved head and umbrella rage. She’s a good girl so I don’t think we’ll be seeing her in court too often anymore, but if we do, I bet she’ll look just fine. Stay classy, Brit.