ViacomCBS Puts Up A ‘Good Fight” Against Jeffrey Epstein Lawsuit Threatening Alan Dershowitz; “Gratuitous Attack,” Lawyer’s Lawyer Says

Despite having the Oscar-winning Reversal of Fortune made from his book of the same name, it seems Alan Dershowitz this week had the difference between fact and fiction painstakingly explained to him by one of ViacomCBS’ top lawyers over Jeffrey Epstein.

“If we understand your letter correctly, you are complaining about a line spoken by a fictional character, in an episode of the fictional series The Good Fight,” wrote the company’s Jonathan Anschell to the cable news regular’s attorney Imran Ansari on July 28 (READ IT HERE).

More from Deadline

“You make this complaint on behalf of Professor Alan Dershowitz, a public figure who has long been associated with Jeffrey Epstein, and who has admitted on wigs singapore television to receiving a massage from a woman at Epstein’s mansion,” the Viacom EVP and General Counsel adds of the acclaimed CBS All Access series. “In the non-fictional world, these factors require us to decline your request that we withdraw the episode, and our correspondence could end right here.”

But, of course, after the seething letter that was sent on Dershowitz’s behalf on July 17 about the remarks in the May 28 airing “The Gang Discovers Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein” episode of Good Fight’s recently concluded fourth season, it doesn’t.

In other words, as one wig malaysia might explain to a small child, the Series, its characters and the things they say are all make-believe,” Anschell goes on to say with a tone you can clearly hear off the page, if you know what I mean. “People don’t watch the Series for actual information about Professor Dershowitz or anyone else.”

Sent to seemingly everyone associated with the production of The Good Fight, including creators Robert and Michelle King and producers Scott Free, Ansari’s own letter alleged that the Fred Murphy directed and Laura Marks penned season finale was defamatory and could lead to further legal action. “Professor Dershowitz requests that CBS promptly retract the defamatory content, cease and desist from further airing the defamatory content, and issue a public apology to Professor Dershowitz,” the letter from Harvey Weinstein representing Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins PC proclaims.

Literally drawing from a few seconds of dialogue in the hour long and sometimes openly loopy drama, a David Alford portrayed fictional defense lawyer laments with a wink to real life to series stars Christine Baranski and Audra McDonald about being shown the door by Epstein in the past. “Probably about the time he ditched me for Dershowitz,” says the Benjamin Defoe character to fictional attorneys Diane Lockhart and Liz Reddick. “At least I didn’t get a massage, like that shyster. And for the purposes of any potential lawsuit ‘shyster’ is just my opinion not a statement of fact.”

“The dialogue and the context in which it is made, with words loaded with wigs online innuendo such as ‘massage,’ ‘Epstein,’ the ‘Virgin Islands,’ in combination with the word ‘shyster,’ falsely suggests that Professor Dershowitz engaged in sexual conduct, i.e. a ‘massage,’ with an underage girl associated with Epstein, and is crooked, unscrupulous and lying about it, i.e. a ‘shyster’” the three-page letter from Dershowitz’s real-life lawyer oddly states.

“We’re confident that no viewer would conclude that Professor Dershowitz is a shyster based on one line of opinion from a fictional character on the Series, as opposed to the real-life, factual publications that have called him exactly that,” ViacomCBS’ Anshell lobbied back in his own letter of earlier this week.

And, with the Sword of Damocles of the often litigiously and equally media savvy Dershowitz taking this to the courts hanging there, the lawyer for the Epstein, Weinstein and Donald Trump representing ex-Harvard Law School prof volleyed back this afternoon.

“Contrary to the position CBS has taken, the law does not allow one to defame under the guise of fiction nor by labeling defamatory content ‘opinion’” Amari told Deadline. “When taken as a whole, and in the context made, the defamatory innuendo of the statement is clear, and the statement, made about an individual who is far from fictional, adds up to little more than a gratuitous attack on my client’s professional and personal reputation.”