Danis left without legal representation again as second attorney quits over unpaid fees

Dillon Danis is without legal representation for the second time in his ongoing civil lawsuit with model Nina Agdal, after Judge Michael Hammer granted attorney Mark Berman’s motion to withdraw on June 9.

Berman, of Hartmann Doherty Rosa Berman & Bulbulia, LLC, cited two core reasons for his departure: Danis had failed to pay the firm’s monthly invoices in a timely manner and had not maintained the required retainer at the agreed level. A separate and equally pressing concern was Danis’ near-total silence — Berman documented outreach attempts on February 17, March 13, and March 30, none of which received a response. Only after Berman indicated he would be filing to withdraw did Danis reply at all.

This is not the first time Berman has sought to exit the case. He previously filed a motion to withdraw over lack of payment, but remained as counsel once those outstanding bills were settled. The second departure proved final.

“As I have stated previously, I personally like Mr. Danis a lot, this is an interesting case and I would prefer to continue representing him,” Berman wrote in his motion. “However, I cannot do so effectively if he fails to respond to my communications and the firm will not allow me to do so if its professional fees and expenses remain unpaid.”

Under the judge’s order, Danis has 30 days to retain new counsel. If he fails to do so, he will be deemed “pro se” — meaning he would represent himself in all future hearings. As of Wednesday, no new attorney had been confirmed.

The lawsuit was filed in September 2023 by Agdal, who is now married to social media personality and boxer Logan Paul. Agdal alleged that Danis posted “despicable” content about her more than 250 times following the announcement of his boxing match against Paul, claiming she suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and reputational harm as a result.

Among the allegations, Agdal stated that at least one post involved a sexually explicit image from a private encounter more than a decade ago, which she argued violated both federal and state law. She is seeking no less than $150,000 per violation of the federal statute prohibiting the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, with total damages left unspecified.