The Maryland attorney who three years ago dropped Aaron Babbitt as a client in the shooting death of his wife on Jan. 6 is endangering a final settlement of the $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit between Judicial Watch Inc. and the U.S. Department of Justice, an attorney told a District of Columbia federal court on May 19.
Terrell N. Roberts III, who walked away from the case in February 2022, rejected an offer to set aside 25% of any financial settlement in a dedicated trust account while the issue of what fees, if any, Roberts is owed is determined in arbitration by the Attorney Client Arbitration Board of the District of Columbia Bar.
'We are representing Ashli’s family pro bono!'
“Plaintiffs are concerned by Mr. Roberts’ role in this case, which is frustrating completion of the settlement,” said Judicial Watch attorney Robert Sticht, who represents Aaron Babbitt of San Diego and the estate of his late wife, Ashli Babbitt.
Roberts wants U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes to decide the issue of attorney fees, arguing that arbitration could take six months. He also wants the judge to revisit her rejection of a charging lien against the settlement.
The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, claimed May 19 that the settlement agreement is for less than $5 million. Parties in the suit would not comment on the news story or the alleged amount. The Post reported incorrectly that Judicial Watch and Washington, D.C., attorney Richard Driscoll would take one-third of any settlement.
“I can say, contrary to initial WPOST report, @JudicialWatch is not getting a third (or any portion) of any settlement,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton posted on X. “We are representing Ashli’s family pro bono!”
Sticht now looks prophetic, as he tried to caution the news media against reporting that Judicial Watch would reap a windfall in the case.
Sticht was chastised and silenced by Judge Reyes at a May 12 hearing when he tried to announce to the press listening on the court’s audio feed that Judicial Watch will take no fees from the Babbitt lawsuit.
“This is crazy, and it is costing a lot of money,” Sticht said of the delays caused by the fee dispute. “And just so the court knows, for the record and all the press who may be on the telephone, Judicial Watch does not a get fee out of this settlement.”
RELATED: Federal judge explodes in Ashli Babbitt court hearing as wrongful-death case slows
Judge Reyes talked over Sticht and chastised him for speaking directly to the media.
“Mr. Sticht, did I not just tell you that when I start talking, you stop?” Reyes snapped.
Roberts represented Babbitt from shortly after Babbitt’s wife was shot to death Jan. 6 by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. Roberts abandoned the case in late February 2022 but has still been seeking up to 40% of the financial settlement being negotiated by Judicial Watch. Babbitt was left to find new legal counsel after Roberts fired him as a client “for cause.”
Judicial Watch agreed to be bound by the decision of the arbitration board. Driscoll, who represents Aaron Babbitt for the narrow issue of the fee dispute with Roberts, filed for D.C. Bar arbitration May 9. He said now that Babbitt has asked for arbitration, both parties are required to take part under bar association rules.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 25% is the maximum fee allowed for all plaintiff attorneys combined.
Sticht said because “the likelihood of Mr. Roberts recovering such a fee is minimal, at best, given his admittedly brief and limited involvement in the legal matter,” the 25% set-aside “protects Mr. Roberts for an inability to recover an award.”
“Mr. Roberts rejected plaintiffs’ offer,” Sticht wrote in the court filing.
Roberts sought a charging lien from the court against the gross amount of any settlement. Judge Reyes rejected the idea, but allowed Roberts to be an intervenor in the case for the limited purpose of keeping tabs on settlement developments.
Roberts said if he is compelled to participate in arbitration, he will ask Judge Reyes to issue a stay in the lawsuit until the issue of attorney’s fees is settled.
RELATED: Ashli Babbitt stood up to him — now J6er 'Helmet Boy' faces new charges
“As a fundamental matter, arbitration is not an efficient option at this juncture,” Roberts wrote to the court. “The process could take up to six months (if not more). That is too long given that we are a hair’s breadth from a settlement. The court could more practically handle the matter of attorney’s fees in a fraction of the time it would take to arbitrate the case.”
Sticht said that idea “goes well beyond the limited intervention the court permitted.”
“Mr. Roberts presents no justification for why the court should reconsider these issues,” Sticht wrote.
Roberts’ attempts to cash in on the lawsuit have added drama and frustration to an already tense courtroom atmosphere. Since the first hearing on the lawsuit on Aug. 6, 2024, Judge Reyes has repeatedly lost her temper with Sticht, shouting at him to “stop talking” and accusing him of giving “snide” answers to her questions.
Brian Boyd, a DOJ trial attorney, said in the filing that the government supports the proposed 25% set-aside because it “is sufficient to protect Mr. Roberts’ interests.”
Boyd said Judicial Watch’s agreement to abide by the arbitration panel’s decision “and disperse [sic] to Mr. Roberts that portion of the set-aside funds that ACAB determines Mr. Roberts is owed, if any, should eliminate Mr. Roberts’ concern regarding his ability to collect fees to which he is entitled.”
Trial in the $30 million lawsuit is set for July 2026. The election of President Donald J. Trump last November vastly changed the DOJ’s demeanor toward the case and pushed the government toward a settlement.
In the years since Babbitt was killed, President Trump has expressed support and sympathy for the Babbitt family while ripping Lt. Byrd as a “thug” and a “coward.” The president expressed his belief that Ashli Babbitt “was murdered.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Last week, a Georgia court ordered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to pay Judicial Watch nearly $22,000, finding that she ignored the organization's open records request and hid communications.
In August 2023, Judicial Watch submitted an Open Records Act request for communications Willis' office had with the Department of Justice's special counsel Jack Smith's office and the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, protest at the United States Capitol.
'The District Attorney's Office flatly ignored Plaintiff's original ORA request, conducting no search and simply (and falsely) informing the County's Open Records Custodian that no responsive records existed.'
The DA's office claimed it did "not have the responsive records."
"This response was perplexing and eventually suspicious to [Judicial Watch], given that Plaintiff subsequently uncovered through own effort at least one document that should have been in the District Attorney's Office's possession that was patently responsive to the request," Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney wrote.
In March 2024, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Willis, arguing that she had "falsely denied" having any related communications to its open records request.
The judge found that Willis' office repeatedly denied the existence of such records. However, in a later memo, her office "announced that there still were no records responsive to one set of Plaintiff's requests (communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith) but that there were in fact records responsive to Plaintiff's second set of requests (communications with the United States House January 6th Committee) -- but those were exempt from disclosure."
McBurney stated that an open records request "is not hortatory; it is mandatory."
"Non-compliance has consequences," he wrote.
"Per her Records Custodian's own admission, the District Attorney's Office flatly ignored Plaintiff's original ORA request, conducting no search and simply (and falsely) informing the County's Open Records Custodian that no responsive records existed," McBurney continued. "We know now that that is simply incorrect: once pressed by a Court order, Defendant managed to identify responsive records, but has categorized them as exempt."
McBurney called the "late revelation" of the allegedly exempt communications "a patent violation" of Judicial Watch's open records request.
The judge ordered Willis to pay the organization's $21,578 in legal fees within two weeks.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton responded to the McBurney's decision.
"Fani Willis flouted the law, and the court is right to slam her and require, at a minimum, the payment of nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch," Fitton said. "But in the end, Judicial Watch wants the full truth on what she was hiding – her office's political collusion with the Pelosi January 6 committee to 'get Trump.'"
The DA's office did not respond to a request for comment from the New York Post.
Willis and her office have faced several misconduct allegations over the past year.
In December, Willis was disqualified from the Georgia case against President-elect Donald Trump due to her affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
Willis also faced an investigation into her office's alleged misuse of federal grants worth $488,000. According to a staff whistleblower, the funds, which were earmarked for establishing a youth gang prevention center, were spent on ineligible and unrelated expenses.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Judicial Watch has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to force the CIA to disclose any involvement in the January 6 Capitol riot — and President Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch isn’t giving up.
After coming across documents that showed that the CIA had teams present at the Capitol and responding to the alleged pipe bombs found near the RNC and DNC, as well as other agents on standby, Fitton believes there’s a lot more to the story than the public is being told.
“This was astonishing news to us,” Fitton tells BlazeTV hosts Jill Savage of “Blaze News Tonight” and James Poulos of “Zero Hour."
“We didn’t know the CIA had operators deployed on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol, and I’m sure it’s a surprise to Americans that the CIA was conducting law enforcement activities here in America,” he continues.
When Judicial Watch followed up with the comprehensive FOIA request for records explaining what the CIA was doing at the Capitol on January 6, Fitton tells Savage and Poulos they “got the proverbial hand to the face.”
“We’ve sued in federal court for the records,” he says. “Law enforcement personnel working for the CIA on the ground on January 6, certainly that ought to be disclosable or disclosed to the American people.”
Savage then notes the “six different areas involved” in the lawsuit. “Shots fired inside the Capitol, a person shot inside the Capitol, requests for CIA support or assistance to the Capitol, bomb technicians, and accelerating or explosive canine devices in any after-action reports about January 6 events in Washington, D.C.”
“So why are all those different areas mentioned here?” Savage asks Fitton.
“Those are the areas that we think the CIA was likely to be involved in, and given the prior documents we have, certainly with the explosive devices that were found, that was really specific to the CIA,” he explains.
To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case involving questions surrounding federal candidate litigation of state election regulations. Known as Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the case offers the nation’s highest court with the opportunity to provide a definitive ruling on the issue of whether a federal candidate who has […]
'It's bad if courts are not hearing well-plead claims [and] good-faith questions about conflicts between state and federal law.'
The non-profit published a press release outlining the department's demands in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
Fulton County DA Fani Willis must turn over communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith and Democrats' Jan. 6 Committee, a judge ruled.
Election integrity watchdogs say private funds in elections pale in comparison to what Biden has wrought through the power of his pen.
While leading Democrats' smears against constitutionalist Supreme Court justices, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse was engaging in actual corruption, says the complaint.
www.theblaze.com