The notification arrived on a Thursday morning, three weeks after Harvey and I had walked out of 200 Vesey Street.
A formal letter from the SEC Office of Inspector General, addressed to Zane & Roden as complaining parties, informing us that a full investigation had been opened into the conduct of Gary Blatchford, enforcement officer, Southern District regional office. Subpoenas had been issued for Meridian Communications' financial records, Blatchford's personal banking over a four-year period, and the shell company registered to Linda Blatchford's consulting practice.
The investigation was active. The IG was moving.
I read the letter twice, filed it under the case tab, and called Harvey.
He picked up on the first ring. "I got mine this morning."
"Faster than we estimated."
"The IG doesn't wait when someone drops sixty-three pages of documented corruption in their lap." A brief pause — not calculation, more like settling. "Forstman knows by now."
"Forstman knew before we did. His banking contacts would have flagged the subpoena the minute it hit Meridian's legal department."
"So we should expect—"
My desk phone rang. Then my mobile. Then my mobile again.
"I'll call you back," I said.
The defamation complaints arrived simultaneously at Zane & Roden's legal address and Harvey's apartment building.
Forstman's attorneys had filed against both of us personally — not against our firms, not against our clients, not through any of the corporate vehicles he'd been using for months. Against Scott Roden and Harvey Specter as individuals.
Reckless, malicious, and defamatory accusations designed to interfere with legitimate investment activities.
Fifteen million dollars each.
I read the complaint in ten minutes, which was about nine minutes longer than it took to identify it as legally frivolous. Truthful statements made in the course of a good-faith federal complaint were absolutely privileged. The anti-SLAPP statutes were written for exactly this — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, the technical term for using litigation as a weapon rather than a remedy.
The legal merits were not the point.
The point was that I was now personally defending a $15 million lawsuit while planning a wedding and running three active client matters and monitoring a federal investigation, and the cost of being attacked was different from the cost of being wrong.
I called Harvey back.
"Fifteen million," Harvey said.
"Each."
"He's trying to make the cost of opposition outrun the benefit of principle."
"Yes."
"Does it?" Harvey asked.
"No," I said.
A pause. "Good. Because I wasn't going to let it anyway."
Zane read the complaint in his office doorway while I stood in front of his desk. He finished the last page, looked up, and set it down with the precise flatness of a man whose reaction was already resolved before his eyes finished the document.
"What do you need?" he said.
"Sixty hours of associate support for the motion to dismiss. And your name behind the filing — it carries weight."
"You have it." He folded the complaint in half and set it aside. "This firm stands behind its partners. That is not a conditional statement."
Forty-fifth floor, Pearson Specter Litt, same conversation in different words.
Jessica found Harvey at his desk thirty minutes after the complaint arrived. She sat in the chair across from him, which she never did for routine matters. She looked at the document.
"You did the right thing," she said. "I'm not going to let Forstman punish you for it."
Harvey looked at her. "Thank you, Jessica."
She nodded once and stood.
The economy of it was complete — no ceremony, no lengthy affirmation. Just two people who had been in the same institution long enough to know that I'm not going to let this happen was a different kind of promise when Jessica Pearson said it.
[ Win Rate Calculator: Defamation defense — anti-SLAPP motion probability: 91%. Case law: New York Code of Civil Procedure 76-a, absolute privilege for statements made in connection with governmental proceedings. Forstman's complaint fails as a matter of law. Filing timeline: 72 hours for maximum early dismissal impact. ]
I filed the motion at 8:47 AM on Friday.
Harvey filed his parallel motion at 9:03.
The two motions told the same story through different cases: constitutionally protected petitioning activity cannot form the basis for defamation. The complaint was a legal nullity. And in Scott Roden's motion, appendix B was a litigation history of Forstman's defamation complaints over the previous decade — seven suits, all against people who opposed his positions, all eventually dismissed or withdrawn. The pattern was evidence of abuse of process. We weren't just defending this suit. We were documenting the mechanism.
Forstman's attorney called my office at noon.
"You understand this is going to be very expensive for you personally," he said.
"I understand you filed a legally frivolous complaint and I've documented your client's pattern of using litigation as harassment. I'd encourage you to advise him accordingly."
A pause. The attorney's name was Clifton Rhodes — I'd pulled his history, found him competent and mercenary. He knew the case was bad. He was calling because Forstman had told him to call.
"My client is prepared to settle."
"My client — which in this context is me — is not. We're going to dismiss this suit, publish the anti-SLAPP motion as a public record, and use it as evidence in the IG investigation to demonstrate Forstman's pattern of retaliatory conduct." I kept my voice even. "That's what settlement avoids for him. You may want to explain that mathematics."
I hung up.
[ Argument Crusher: Forstman litigation strategy assessment. Filing defamation suits against attorneys who reported legitimate federal corruption — this is flailing, not strategy. Probability of successful coercion: 8%. Probability this escalation damages Forstman's position with IG: 74%. Initiative confirmation: target is now reacting to us, not us to him. ]
Harvey Specter — his office, 4:15 PM
He had the Forstman defamation complaint open on his desk next to the motion to dismiss and a half-eaten sandwich that his assistant had brought at one and that he'd gotten around to at four.
He read the motion to dismiss a third time.
Not because he was checking Scott's work. Because the argument was good and he wanted to understand how it was structured — the specific sequence in which Scott had built the anti-SLAPP case, the way he'd integrated the litigation history appendix as pattern evidence rather than just background.
It was, Harvey had to acknowledge, exactly the right approach.
He'd built his own motion differently — more aggressive, front-loading the privilege argument before the procedural posture. Less patient with the setup. He'd won with that approach in nine of eleven anti-SLAPP cases in his career.
Scott's version would likely win faster.
The recognition came without particular discomfort at this point. Harvey was past the stage where noticing someone else's quality felt like a threat. That had been true since the closing argument he'd watched from the back of a courtroom in late January, standing in his coat with no one else knowing he was there.
He closed the motion and looked out the window.
The IG investigation was moving. Blatchford would be suspended within two weeks — standard procedure when an enforcement officer became the subject of a federal investigation. Forstman's manufactured audit pipeline would be severed. His ability to engineer regulatory pressure against future targets would be compromised possibly permanently.
All of this because Scott Roden had stood in his office and made a principled argument until Harvey had agreed it was the right argument.
He thought about Mike.
The thought arrived the way it always arrived — quietly, from the side, with the weight of something he'd been carrying for three years without setting down.
The Cahill investigation had paused during the Forstman crisis. SEC resources pulled in two directions. Harvey had registered the pause with the relief of a man who knew his reprieve was temporary.
Now the crisis was resolving. Resources would flow back to Cahill's desk.
He hadn't told Mike to expect it. He'd been managing the situation — the way Harvey managed everything, by handling it himself, protecting the people around him from the full weight of what was coming. Giving them the version of reality they could function in.
He sat with that thought.
The worst thing you can do is take someone's agency away by deciding what they can handle.
He hadn't said that. Scott Roden hadn't said that. No one had said that. It had arrived in his head in a voice that was assembled from the past several months of watching a man consistently choose the harder right path over the easier comfortable one.
Harvey picked up his phone.
He put it down.
He picked it up again.
That night, Donna found me cross-referencing venue catering minimums with the anti-SLAPP case law I'd been building since noon.
Two browser windows. One spreadsheet. One legal pad with an argument outline in the margin and a notation about the salmon option.
She stood in the doorway of the home office for a moment.
"Are you," she said carefully, "reviewing anti-SLAPP precedents while simultaneously deciding whether we serve chicken or salmon at the wedding?"
"The motions have to go in Monday and Louis sent his seventeenth spreadsheet about the catering decision and both deadlines are real."
She laughed — not the professional laugh, the one that came from somewhere unguarded. She leaned against the doorframe and laughed and I looked at her and thought: this is the specific ridiculousness that constitutes my actual life and I wouldn't amend a single detail of it.
"Only you," she said.
"Only us," I said. "You're the one who agreed to marry someone currently facing a $15 million defamation lawsuit."
"I agreed to marry someone who got that lawsuit by filing a federal complaint against a corrupt SEC officer." She came in and looked at the screen. "What does the salmon option cost?"
"Twelve dollars more per head."
"Get the salmon. It photographs better." She kissed the top of my head. "Dismiss the lawsuit first."
"In that order?"
"In that order."
A LOT More chapters reign FREE upon unwrittenrealm.com.
• Normal | $8 — 15 chapters ahead
• Advanced | $11 — 20 chapters ahead
• Overlord | $19 — 25 chapters ahead, plus request a refinement (plot, character, system) on any of my novels
patreon.com/TheFinex5
▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰
― DECREE ―
More chapters reign FREE upon unwrittenrealm.com.
The throne acknowledges.
▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰