Carolyn Condit's attorney urges 'Law & Order' apology

Neville Johnson, an attorney for Carolyn Condit, says his client hasn't made a decision yet whether to sue for defamation over a "Law & Order" episode.

Editor's Note: CNN Access is a regular feature on CNN.com providing interviews with newsmakers from around the world.

(CNN) -- Carolyn Condit, wife of U.S. Rep. Gary Condit, has demanded an apology from the NBC TV series "Law & Order," alleging an episode apparently drawn from the Chandra Levy case defamed her.

Gary Condit, who lost his California congressional district's Democratic primary this week, emerged as a pivotal figure in the disappearance case of Levy, 24, a former Washington intern. District of Columbia police said last year they found no evidence of wrongdoing in the Levy case; they never named any suspects.

Condit publicly said he was a friend of Levy's, but police sources said the congressman admitted to a relationship during an interview with investigators.

Appearing Thursday on CNN's "American Morning," Carolyn Condit attorney Neville Johnson spoke with anchor Anderson Cooper about the "Law & Order" matter.

COOPER: Does Mrs. Gary Condit have a case? For the wife of congressman Gary Condit, an episode of TV's "Law & Order" hit too close to home. Carolyn Condit claims she was defamed in the story about a Condit-like scandal. Mr. Condit's wife is demanding an apology, but the show's producer, USA Studios, is denying that her claims have any basis.

Joining us now from Los Angeles, Neville Johnson, who is Carolyn Condit's attorney.

MORE STORIES Condit's wife says 'Law & Order' defamed her

Exactly what is your problem with the program that aired? Or why is it you want an on-air apology?

JOHNSON: Well, it's required before we can start a lawsuit to get certain damages. Retraction is necessary -- that we ask for it from the broadcaster and the production company.

COOPER: Do you actually expect to file a lawsuit?

JOHNSON: We haven't made the decision yet. We have filed a lawsuit against The National Enquirer for similar statements they made.

COOPER: [At] the beginning of each "Law & Order" episode, they [give] an on-camera disclaimer -- in this case, "Although inspired by a true incident, the following is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event." It would seem on the face of it a hard case to win. They have this disclaimer.

JOHNSON: Well, you also know, that there are teases for their show that say, "Ripped from the headlines." And the law in California, and there's a famous case involving this, is that one can sue for a work of fiction if the reasonable person reading it, or hearing it, or seeing would say, "Well, that is such and such a person," and they were defamed.

COOPER: How soon do you expect to hear back? I know you had asked for an on-air retraction in [Wednesday] night's episode. That didn't happen. What's the next step?

JOHNSON: Well, they have 20 days from the time we sent them the letter. I think they've got about another week or so before they have to respond to us or give us the apology and retraction. If they don't, then we have one year from the time the show broadcast to ...

COOPER: There are some who would say, you know, by threatening this lawsuit, aren't you giving this show, this situation, more attention than it would have otherwise received?

JOHNSON: Well ... one alternative is to just lie down and ignore it. Otherwise, [if] somebody wants to protect and defend their reputation, they need to do that.

COOPER: Your lawsuit against The National Enquirer. That's different. What is that based on?

JOHNSON: The National Enquirer ran a headline that said, "Condit's Wife Attacked Chandra" and then ran a story that said that there had been a heated phone conversation between Miss Levy and Mrs. Condit, which was completely false, ... and that ran last summer.

The episode of "Law & Order" effectively republishes that false statement. And the episode was about a woman married to a political type who supposedly had a phone conversation with the character there and then is identified as the culprit. And [Wednesday], on Barbara Walters' show, "The View," she said, "Well, everybody knows, I saw that show, everybody knows that that was Mrs. Condit that they were talking about."

COOPER: In The National Enquirer case, how much money are you seeking?

JOHNSON: Well, we said in The National Enquirer case, we said a minimum $10 million, but you know, that's left up to jury.

COOPER: How likely do you think it will be to actually see a jury? Would you be willing to settle?

JOHNSON: We're always interested in settling a case, but we're going to go through some -- obviously a hard fight in which they will try and knock out with every conceivable response they can come up with and hire the toughest lawyers in town.

COOPER: All right.

JOHNSON: We're working with the leading expert in the United States on defamation, wrote the treatise on it. He's a law professor. And you know, we've looked at the case very carefully, and this is a very terrible thing ..., and it raises an important issue for the American public of -- just because somebody is married to somebody who may be famous, does that mean that they automatically can get kicked as well if the spouse or the mother or the child or somebody else gets caught up in some sort of controversy?

Mrs. Condit had never given any interviews in her whole life or ever given any campaign speeches, and suddenly, just to sell some newspapers, and in this case, to make an episode for a television show, malicious statements were made about her.

COOPER: All right, Neville Johnson, thanks very much. We should again point out Studios USA, the producers of the show, say they believe there's no basis for her claim, the show is fictional.