Judge in Wendy Williams Case: Conflicting Statements — Public Shade vs. Private Concern?
The legal saga surrounding Wendy Williams just took another dramatic twist — and this time, the tea is coming straight from the bench.
According to Media Take Out, Judge Lisa Sokoloff, who’s presiding over the ongoing legal battle involving Wendy’s conservatorship, is being called out for making conflicting and allegedly biased statements — both in open court and behind closed doors.
On Thursday, April 10, during a public court appearance, Judge Sokoloff reportedly told the 60-year-old former talk show host that her “career is done.” Oof. And that’s not all — she also allegedly called Wendy’s family “no good”and went after her niece Alex Finnie, accusing her of leaking sensitive court details and warning that any future slip would result in legal repercussions.
According to insiders close to the case, the comments weren’t just inappropriate — they were deeply hurtful to Wendy, who’s been publicly battling health struggles, personal trauma, and what some fans believe is a wrongfully imposed conservatorship.
Wendy’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, wasn’t having it. He pushed back immediately, telling the judge her comments displayed clear bias in a proceeding that has nothing to do with Wendy’s career prospects.
“This case is about her autonomy, not whether or not she books another show,” Tacopina reportedly said. “And for the record, Wendy is absolutely capable of returning to television.”
But now it’s getting even messier.
Sealed Transcripts Tell a Different Story
Media Take Out has confirmed that in sealed court transcripts, Judge Sokoloff conflicted her public remarks.
In the closed-door portion of the hearing, the judge spoke about Wendy Williams “career” and how she expects it to continue, even after the conservatorship is settled. The judge SPECIFICALLY mentioned that the court would take every effort to keep the contents of the legal battle private, to ensure that Wendy would continue having a successful career when the proceedings finish.
Media Take Out does not have possession of those transcripts, but we can confirm with 100% certainty of their existence. If we were in possession (which we are not) we would be precluded from posting the transcripts, as New York law prevents their publication.
Hold up — didn’t she just say Wendy’s career was already over to her face in open court?
The difference in tone is striking. Publicly dismissing Wendy’s professional future, while privately acknowledging its potential and the need to protect it, has fans and legal experts alike raising eyebrows.
Bias or Strategy?
Some are speculating that Judge Sokoloff’s public statements may have been a calculated tactic — maybe to assert control in a tense courtroom, or even to pressure the parties into compliance. But others say it smells like outright judicial bias, especially in a case already criticized for being opaque and possibly exploitative.
The judge’s comments also touch on a broader conversation: who gets to decide when a public figure’s career is “over”? And should a judge — especially in a conservatorship case — be the one making that call?
What’s Next?
Wendy’s legal team is reportedly weighing next steps, and supporters are calling for more transparency and accountability in the case. For now, one thing’s clear: this battle isn’t just about money or guardianship — it’s about control, public image, and a woman’s right to define her own narrative.
And Wendy? If we know anything about her, she’s not going down quietly.