Z's lawsuit claims that Tony Buzbee pushed his client to go forward with "false claims," which the Houston attorney called the allegations against him as "total (BS) and he knows it."

Jay-Z's lawsuit against famed Texas attorney Tony Buzbee reportedly contains enough merit to proceed to trial.

Tony Buzbee has been barred from practicing law in the five boroughs that comprise New York City. According to legal documents obtained by prolific and renowned court reporter Megann Cuniff, Buzbee has lost permission to practice law in the Southern District of New York.

The hip-hop argues his accuser and her lawyer were "soullessly motivated by greed, in abject disregard of the truth," per a complaint Page Six obtained.

Tony Buzbee might need his own legal counsel. A judge has approved for Jay-Z’s defamation case against the lawyer to go to trial.

The Texas-based lawyer took to Instagram over the weekend to address inquiries about whether he was “barred” from practicing law in New York State.

Houston attorney Tony Buzbee named Jay-Z as the co-conspirator in the bombshell lawsuit filed against Bad Boy Entertainment CEO, Sean “Diddy” Combs, accusing them of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl more than two decades ago.

Meanwhile Jay-Z sues former accuser and her lawyer. Show more Jay-Z files a lawsuit against the woman who accused him of rape and her lawyer Tony Buzbee, who said: "This case is baloney and has no legal merit".

Z" Carter's legal team submitted new evidence in the Superior Court of the State of California to prove that lawyer Tony Buzbee told Jane Doe to lie and make false rape allegations against Mr. Carter.

Z’s defamation lawsuit against Houston attorney Tony Buzbee had enough merit to go to trial, Rolling Stone Magazine reports. However, the rapper’s separate extortion claim against Buzbee may not stand in trial.

Jay-Z sued the Jane Doe that accused him of rape, as well as her lawyers Tony Buzbee and David Fortney. In the rapper's Monday, March 3 filing, he proposed three causes of action against all three defendants: malicious prosecution,