Michael Jordan has been called many things, but "greedy" hasn't been one of them - until now. At least, according to his lawyer.
Do better stats at age 29 make LeBron James better than Michael Jordan?
According to Reuters, a 90-year-old judge in Chicago has withdrawn from Hall of Famer Michael Jordan's lawsuit against a Chicago supermarket chain over the use of his name and image in a magazine ad.
U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur admonished Jordan's lawyers for mounting a "groundless and unwarranted personal attack" on his integrity after being accused of trying to pressure the former Chicago Bulls superstar and current Charlotte Hornets owner to lower his damages claim.
But the judge agreed to withdraw to avoid any potential bias, Reuters reported.
Jordan originally brought a lawsuit against Dominick's Finer Foods, a branch of Safeway, Inc., over an ad in an issue of Sports Illustrated that commemorated Jordan's Hall of Fame induction in 2009. The ad apparently used a silhouette of Jordan with the phrase, "You are a cut above." A $2-off coupon for steak was placed below the phrase, according to Reuters.
Lawyer Frederick Sperling last week accused Shadur of describing Jordan in court as "greedy" and asked for Shadur to recuse himself. Sperling added that Shadur compared the NBA's arguably greatest player to a "hog" who would "get slaughtered" for seeking as much as $2.5 million in damages.
Sperling said that Shadur tried to intimidate Jordan into lowering his price. A witness for Jordan testified that the ad's commercial was worth as much as $10 million, according to court records. Reuters reported that Jordan intended to donate whatever money he won after legal fees to charity.
Shadur granted Sperling's request, but not before saying the request was filled with "skewed mischaracterizations" and that he regretted having to levy "such criticism of a lawyer for whom this court had previously held some degree of regard."
"This most recent development in the litigation has unfortunately eroded that regard and any respect that this Court had held for Jordan's counsel to the point where this Court is concerned lest there be a danger that subliminal forces could perhaps unwittingly affect the decisional process in this case," Shadur wrote. "It is a risk that cannot be allowed to exist even in possibility."
Do you think Michael Jordan should have sued Dominick's Fine Foods? Comment below or tell us at SportsWN.
© 2023 Sportsworldnews.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
