The real question now is why does the media give Michael Avenatti any air time?  Before we get into the legal substance of one of his cases and while Republican opposition to Avenatti needs no explanation, we note that there is bipartisan opposition to Avenatti.  For example, former New York Democrat Rep. Steve Israel wrote an Op-Ed in The Hill entitled "Michael Avenatti, please go away" and even Avenatti acknowledged Democrats hate him:

Establishment Democrats, Avenatti said, are trying to “discredit” him “so they can nominate some schlocky establishment Democrat” for president.

Well maybe that is why. Avenatti wants to be seen as a front runner in his race for President.  As a Republican group we won’t comment further on that but as a lawyers group we will note that his major loss on Monday to President Trump that included legal fees.  To some commentators, that was his best case.  Ronn Blitzer in the Law & Crime blog details this in his article "Avenatti Frantically Tries to Spin Major Loss in Stormy Daniels Case By Attacking Trump" and adds on the other lesser parts (emphasis added):

Daniels’ other cases, on the other hand, don’t have quite as much strength. Her defamation case against Cohen is laughable, given that it’s based on a statement that wasn’t even false. Cohen had been asked why he would pay $130,000 to Daniels over allegations of an affair that never happened, and Cohen replied, “Just because something isn’t true doesn’t mean that it can’t cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump.”

While Daniels took this to be an implication that her claims are false, that’s not really what Cohen said. All he stated was a reason for a payment. If you look at the plain meaning of his words, there’s nothing wrong with making a generalization about things being able to cause damage even if they aren’t true. Ironically, the only part of the statement that’s arguably false is where he said he would always protect Trump, given how his criminal case ended.

So Avenatti's client has to pay Trump’s legal fees in one case and another claim is laughable. Of course, it gets better (or worse).  And on the Non-Disclosure Agreement part of the case:

[I]f the case were to move forward in court, they’d likely lose anyway, since there still appears to be a valid agreement between Daniels and Cohen/Essential Consultants LLC, where she agreed to accept money in exchange for her silence.

While Avenatti’s tactics are pretty transparent,  I can’t say I blame him. If he’s not winning in a court of law, the best he can do is try to garner a victory in the court of public opinion. So far, he and Stormy Daniels have had much greater success there.

So why is the media giving Michael Avenatti any air time?  At a time when Republicans and Democrats can hardly agree on anything, all sides agree that Avenatti needs to go away.