Court Sanctions Top #MeToo Firm in Leon Black Case for 'Lying Repeatedly'

NEW YORK, NY – April 24, 2026 – In a scathing 76-page ruling, a federal judge has imposed severe sanctions on the prominent plaintiff’s firm Wigdor LLP and its former client, ‘Jane Doe,’ for what the court described as “serious and varied misconduct” in their lawsuit against billionaire financier Leon Black. The decision, handed down by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke of the Southern District of New York, marks a significant victory for Black and a stunning rebuke for a law firm known for championing high-profile #MeToo cases.

Sanctions are among the most serious penalties a court can issue, and Judge Clarke’s order found that Jane Doe and her counsel at Wigdor “lied repeatedly,” destroyed and falsified evidence, and pursued a case built on falsehoods. The ruling effectively guts the credibility of the plaintiff and her legal team, ordering them to pay attorneys’ fees Mr. Black incurred in fighting their conduct and placing stringent reporting requirements on the firm’s lead counsel.

A 'Thorough Repudiation' of Claims

In a strongly worded statement, Mr. Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich of Estrich Goldin LLP, called the ruling a “thorough repudiation of Doe’s and Wigdor’s claims – and their credibility.”

“The Court found that Doe and Wigdor lied ‘repeatedly’ to the point of ‘serious sanctionable misconduct,’” Estrich stated. “The Court found that they destroyed evidence, falsified evidence, and committed ‘serious and varied misconduct’ in their zeal to try to destroy Mr. Black.”

The court’s findings were specific and damning. Judge Clarke barred Doe from using what the ruling called her “fake ‘evidence’,” which included sonogram images that had allegedly been falsified within personal journals used to support her complaint. The court also identified Wigdor lead counsel Jeanne Christensen as a “liar” who had “lied repeatedly to the Court and to opposing counsel” regarding proceedings in a related action.

As part of the sanctions, Christensen has been ordered to provide a copy of Judge Clarke’s opinion to any federal court in the Second Circuit where she is counsel of record for the next year. The order further compels her, for the next five years, to disclose the opinion in any case where a sanctions motion is filed against her or the firm.

A Pattern of Legal Defeats

The ruling is the latest and most dramatic in a series of legal defeats for Wigdor LLP in its multi-front litigation against Leon Black. The firm, which has built a national reputation representing victims of sexual harassment and assault against figures like Harvey Weinstein and Sean “Diddy” Combs, has now seen all three of its lawsuits against Black collapse.

In January 2025, a New York state appeals court dismissed the case of Guzel Ganieva with prejudice, ruling her claims were barred by a non-disclosure agreement for which she accepted $9 million from Black. Just a month later, in February 2025, the lawsuit filed by Cheri Pierson, who also accused Black of rape, was similarly dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Black has consistently maintained he never met Ms. Pierson.

Estrich highlighted this pattern, stating, “The Wigdor firm has filed three civil lawsuits against Mr. Black... The outcomes have been clear. The Ganieva case was dismissed with prejudice. The Pierson case was dismissed with prejudice... Now, Wigdor and Jane Doe have been sanctioned for their misconduct by a federal judge. It is shameful what they have done and there is absolutely no truth to any of the allegations against Mr. Black.”

Credibility Collapse and Ethical Questions

The court’s decision delved deep into the credibility of Jane Doe’s allegations, which included a claim that she was violently raped by Black at Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The ruling notes that Wigdor LLP pursued the case despite being explicitly warned by class counsel for Epstein’s victims that Doe’s claims were likely fraudulent and that she had never met Epstein.

This echoes an earlier finding by another esteemed jurist in the district, Judge Jed Rakoff, who had previously found Doe not to be credible. According to Black’s legal team, Doe’s outlandish and unsubstantiated claims included being trafficked to more than 50 prominent individuals, yet her name does not appear in the database of known Epstein victims.

“Wigdor and Doe should never have filed this case against Mr. Black,” Estrich’s statement continued. “As Judge Clarke noted, the Epstein victims’ class counsel expressly warned the Wigdor firm that the claims were fraudulent... but Wigdor nevertheless continued the lawsuit and launched a media campaign to try to destroy Mr. Black in an attempt to shake him down for a financial windfall.”

In a bizarre twist, after Wigdor LLP withdrew from representing her in April 2026, Jane Doe herself wrote to Judge Clarke, accusing her former attorneys of “disturbing conduct,” “serious ethical violations,” and a “pattern of manipulation and coercion.” Wigdor LLP has stated it would not respond to its former client's “unfounded accusations.” In a statement regarding the sanctions, firm partner Douglas Wigdor focused on the future of the case, noting, “Black's objective was for the court to dismiss this case and while we are upset about the sanction, we are pleased that our former client will get her day in court.”

For Mr. Black, the ruling serves as a powerful form of public vindication after years of battling the allegations in court and in the media. His attorneys are now urging federal authorities to investigate what they characterize as a fraud perpetrated upon the court.