The legal team representing former daytime talk show host Wendy Williams is pushing back against a $250 million civil lawsuit filed by her ex-husband, Kevin Hunter. Hunter’s suit demands Williams’ release from her court-ordered financial guardianship, but her attorneys argue he has no legal standing in the matter and that his actions are detrimental to Williams’ interests.
In a letter sent to the federal judge presiding over Hunter’s lawsuit on July 17, Williams’ court-appointed lawyers, Allan B. Diamond and Peter J. Strauss, asserted their sole authority to represent the 61-year-old star. They stated they were appointed by the Guardianship Court in April after Williams herself “indicated her desire to have us represent her individually in the guardianship proceeding.” They, along with attorney Sadatu Salami-Oyakhilome, are the only ones authorized to represent Williams in connection with her guardianship. Sabrina Morrissey has been appointed as Williams’ official guardian.
Williams’ legal representatives characterized Hunter’s lawsuit as “detrimental” to her interests, noting that Williams herself does not believe the complaint is in her best interest. The letter further criticized Hunter’s filing, stating it “reflects poor judgment, an incomplete picture of the facts and record and a serious misunderstanding of foundational legal principles.” They went on to suggest that, “Read in the worst light, the complaint reveals a deliberate effort to mislead this Court with false statements to obtain improper benefits at [Williams’] expense.”
The attorneys also highlighted two existing Guardianship Court orders from 2022. One order sealed the records in the guardianship case, while another specifically barred the lawyers who filed Hunter’s suit from “communicating in any manner” with Williams, her son Kevin Hunter Jr., or any member of her household. Williams was placed under guardianship in 2022 after Wells Fargo raised concerns about her being a “victim of undue influence and financial exploitation.”
Williams’ lawyers concluded their letter by reiterating that they are the “only court-appointed representatives capable of initiating a litigation for her or on her behalf,” firmly arguing that Hunter’s case should be dismissed.