Earlier this month, Vanderbilt Law School hosted Camille Vasquez, a pivotal figure in the widely publicized Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial of 2022. Organized by The Entertainment and Sports Law Society, the Office of Career Services, and the Branstetter Litigation and Dispute Resolution Program, the event featured Vasquez, a partner at Brown Rudnick and co-chair of the firm’s Brand & Reputation Management group, sharing insights into her career and the intricacies of the defamation trial that captivated global attention. Vasquez, who became nationally recognized as Johnny’s lawyer during the proceedings, discussed her upbringing, professional journey, and the legal strategies employed in the high-stakes Depp v. Heard case.
Camille Vasquez, Johnny Depp's lawyer, speaking at Vanderbilt Law School
The Formative Years of a Renowned Litigator
Vasquez attributed her drive and accomplishments to her immigrant parents, who instilled in her a strong work ethic and high aspirations. Recounting her upbringing, Vasquez humorously noted the limited career options presented to her: “Doctor or lawyer, pick one.” This parental guidance, coupled with their unwavering belief in her potential, fueled her ambition to become an advocate. She excelled academically, graduating magna cum laude from the University of Southern California and subsequently earning her Juris Doctor from Southwestern Law School, marking the beginning of her impactful legal career.
Rewriting the Narrative: Defending Johnny Depp’s Reputation
In her discussion, Vasquez highlighted the unique challenges of representing high-profile clients. She explained that public perception often precedes and overshadows the reality of celebrity clients. Therefore, a crucial aspect of her role as Johnny’s lawyer was to reshape the prevailing narrative surrounding Depp. Vasquez emphasized that for Johnny Depp, the Depp v. Heard trial was not primarily about financial compensation but about reclaiming his tarnished reputation. “All anyone has is their name, so my goal was to give Johnny’s back to him,” she stated, underscoring the profound reputational stakes involved in the case.
Legal Differences: US vs. UK Defamation Law
Vasquez drew a stark contrast between the Depp v. Heard trial in the US and a previous defamation case Depp had pursued in the UK against The Sun newspaper, which he lost. She attributed this differing outcome to fundamental variations in the legal systems of the two countries, particularly concerning courtroom procedures. “In the UK, there is only cross-examination, so you lose the ability to build your client’s story that you would normally have in direct examination,” she explained. This limitation in the UK legal framework, she argued, hindered Depp’s ability to fully present his case, contributing to the unfavorable verdict and subsequent loss of endorsements and public confidence. However, despite the setback, Depp remained resolute, driven by a desire to clear his name and reveal the truth.
Meticulous Preparation and a Focus on Key Accusations
The American retrial involved an immense undertaking, with Vasquez and her team dedicating thousands of hours to preparation, including eighty depositions spanning over nine months. Recognizing the sensitivity and gravity of domestic abuse allegations, which formed the crux of Heard’s Washington Post op-ed, Vasquez assembled a team equipped to handle the complexities of the case. She stressed the extraordinary level of public engagement with the trial, acknowledging that “winning the court of public opinion is as important as ever for clients because these days everyone is a journalist. All it takes is one tweet or post to change the tide of a case.”
Camille Vasquez explaining her legal strategy in the Johnny Depp defamation trial
In navigating the intricate details of the case, Vasquez adopted a focused strategy, prioritizing the core accusations rather than getting bogged down in every minor detail—a lesson learned from the UK trial. “If someone is willing to lie about something as serious and horrific as sexual assault,” she reasoned, “I could convince the jury that they were lying about everything else too.” This strategic decision to concentrate on the most critical aspects of Heard’s testimony proved to be highly effective.
Strategic Roles: Attack and Defense in the Courtroom
A key strategic decision made by Vasquez and her partner, Ben Chew, was to divide their roles. Vasquez took on the responsibility of cross-examining Heard, while Chew focused on defending Depp. This division was deliberate, recognizing that a male attorney aggressively challenging Heard on allegations of sexual abuse could potentially trigger public backlash. “You can’t defend and also attack, that would be too defensive, so there had to be two people doing these roles,” Vasquez clarified. This strategic allocation of responsibilities allowed Vasquez to effectively challenge Heard’s credibility and advocate for Depp without alienating the jury or the public. Ultimately, Camille Vasquez’s dedicated and strategic approach solidified her role not just as Johnny’s lawyer, but as a highly effective advocate who successfully navigated the complexities of a trial watched by the world. By focusing on reputation, understanding the nuances of public opinion, and employing sharp legal strategies, she played a crucial part in the outcome of the Depp v. Heard trial.
