Clarification: Flatley $11 million “settlement”

Earlier this week, we quoted an Australian newspaper that Michael Flatley had won an “$11 million settlement” in his lawsuit against Tyna Marie Robertson, a woman who had falsely accused him of rape and tried to extort him through the threat of litigation, and speculated that Robertson’s other romantic shenanigans with the wealthy may permit her to pay it. Alas, other press coverage reveals that this was not a settlement, but a default judgment, which suggests the inability to pay for a lawyer to defend herself as well as to pay Flatley. On Point’s report of the default judgment notes that Robertson’s child support litigation claims she has $6 to her name. Flatley did come to an undisclosed financial settlement with D. Dean Mauro, the attorney who handled Robertson’s claim, so there will be some justice done.


  • Thanks for catching this. The idea of Robertson’s having paid that kind of sum to settle was sufficiently bizarre that I checked a stack of early news reports, but they were all apparently based on the same erroneous wire story.

  • The story I read said that the CA Supreme Court held that Mauro, the attorney, was guilty of extortion, but the language was confusing because the financial settlement implied that it was a tort. Any chance of clarification on this, as well as how common (more, more likely, uncommon) it is for courts to hold attorneys accountable in this way?