In Church Trademark Case Against Proud Boys Defense Lawyer Says Was Only Doing a Favor

In Church Trademark Case Against Proud Boys Defense Lawyer Says Was Only Doing a Favor by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 28 – There was an out-of-the-ordinary trademark case on July 28 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Katharine Polk Failla, including the "Proud Boys" mark, and Inner City Press live tweeted it: All rise! Judge: Counsel? Paul Weiss law firm for the plaintiffs. Defense counsel Austin M. Manghan: I'm trying to get relieved from this case. A colleague of mine had been retained. I'm not sure if I represent both defendants. Judge: I don't think you do Defense counsel Manghan: My staff, the monitor PACER. When I saw the default judgement, I contacted my colleague, he'd say he would apply to be admitted to SDNY. But it hasn't happened. I wasn't suppose to be in this role. I told AME my plan to get off this case  Defense counsel Austin M. Manghan: I've never spoken to my listed client. I have asked my colleague to apply to SDNY pro hac vice, which I believe is quicker. Judge Failla: I hope you understand my concern that you entered a notice of appearance with no contact Judge Failla: No text? No social media contacts? Carrier pigeon? Defense counsel Manghan: No. I'm a solo practitioner. I know it sounds ridiculous. I understand the gravity of what I've gotten myself into. I am angry about being in this situation, this risk  Judge Failla: It is Touhy? Spelled that way? Defense counsel Manghan: Yes.  Judge: Can you tell him you are in issues here in SDNY? Can you reach out to the client? Manghan: I have tried, looking at social media. I cannot get inside Mr. Tuohy's head on this one  Defense counsel Manghan: He might be trying to protect himself. I am angry. Judge Failla: My deputy has found contact information for him. I didn't think it was appropriate for me to reach out to him. Paul Weiss: This is a unique situation. We have concerns Paul Weiss lawyer: We told Mr. Manghan to send us a draft motion and who would be taking over for him. We need more information. We need more information about Mr. Tuohy and the client, Mr. Pepe.  Judge Failla: I'm just sort of spit-balling. I can find out  Judge Failla: For now, I can prevent Mr. Manghan from withdrawing. There were filings that suggested some contact with Mr. Pepe. What do I do next - send Marshals out? You asked for the conference. What can I do?  Paul Weiss lawyer: We've moved for discovery Paul Weiss lawyer: We would like to move for fees and costs. We have served papers. We can apply for more relief. But Mr. Manghan is counsel of record, we should proceed on that basis. Judge: Yes, he has been served. Maybe an Order to Show Cause is next  Manghan: I apologize to everyone. We could tell Mr. Tuohy to come in, I could tell him my license to practice law is on the line. Judge Failla: I am the chair of the grievance committee. If there is anyone you do not want to run afoul of, I am that girl. Judge: We'll reconvene [mid August] More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here The case is Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Hudson Valley Proud Boys Chapter, et al., 1:25-cv-6396 (Failla) *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com