DUI Guy opens up a can of worms with lawsuit gambit
He may have been trying to emulate his YouTube buddy, Jeremy Hales, but he's gotten more than he bargained for.
Several months ago, Larry “DUI Guy” Forman got into a dispute with a couple, Tyler and Samina Hitch, who worked at his Kentucky law firm, Forman and Associates.
Tyler Hitch had recently won a trial and asked for a raise. Forman didn’t think he was deferential enough, and the dispute led to both Hitch’s being fired.
The acrimonious split quickly turned ugly with Forman making allegations against the couple including them stealing proprietary secrets.
The threats quickly turned into a lawsuit filed by Forman, pro se, against the couple.
In at least one filing, the Hitch’s, who declined to comment when reached by email, stated that they believed Forman was going to use the lawsuit to create YouTube content similarly to his YouTube ally Jeremy Hales.
Thus far, Forman has not done much content on this lawsuit; the last YouTube content was done by another ally, Shizzy Whiz Nut.
Neither Shizzy nor Forman responded to an email for comment.
The Hitch’s were terminated in March 2025.
Shortly after that, Forman filed a lawsuit. His original lawsuit was filed on April 14, 2025.
From the beginning, rather than a YouTube bonanza, this lawsuit has opened a can of worms for Forman, exposing unethical and possibly illegal behavior.
It started with the original complaint, which included a copy of the contract and a specific portion entitled, “Breach of Contract (Non-Solicitation Clause).” The pertinent portion of the contract is below.
To the layman, neither of these sections seems controversial or unfair. It makes sense that Forman entered a part of the contract prohibiting the Hitch’s from trying to poach clients, however, Forman’s lawsuit found its way into the Kentucky legal journal, the Kentucky Trial Court Review. There, sharp eyed legal eagles noticed that this part of the contract violated broad Kentucky legal ethics against non-compete agreements.
With egg on his face, Forman quickly amended his complaint on April 21, 2025, and the same section was changed slightly.
The contract with the unethical clause remained as an exhibit, however. The original complaint remains as an entry in the case.
Things only went downhill for Forman from there. The Hitch’s responded by pointing out the contract Forman drew up called for all disputes to be handled in arbitration. They further suggested that Forman sued, in violation of his contract, in hopes of creating YouTube content.
When Forman balked at arbitration, the Hitch’s filed for sanctions. In it, they argued that not only was his argument against arbitration meritless, but that the lawsuit itself was meritless. The Hitch’s argued that text messages Forman sent shortly after firing them were damning, as he admitted they did nothing wrong.
Forman then argued that by filing a motion for sanctions the Hitch’s waived their right to arbitration, an argument they found ludicrous.
The Hitch’s also accused Forman of using AI for legal filings.
With the rising popularity of AI, many lawyers have been caught cheating, letting AI programs like ChatGPT write their legal filings. In most cases, the lawyer cites a non-existent case. That’s not the case here, and the Hitch’s only argue that his faulty legal argument is consistent with “AI slop.”
The final shoe to drop is the most troubling. In a motion filed on September 22, 2025, the Hitch’s argued that Forman forged their names on legal filings withdrawing them from cases without their knowledge.
In an exhibit, the Hitch’s submitted a motion to withdraw digitally signed by Forman and Tyler Hitch, which Hitch claimed he did not agree to sign.
Ben Potash is a Kentucky attorney, who is currently representing Bruce Matzkin in his lawsuit against Forman.
He previously worked for and with Forman. He said that this behavior is part of a pattern by Forman of mistreating his employees.
I’ve known Larry pretty well since 2017 and I can tell you this: he is extremely good at marketing and performing a character. He’d have been great in showbiz. As for his talents as an attorney, well, I’ll just say that I don’t know a single lawyer in Louisville who would refer a serious, complicated case to him. That might be why Larry tried to hire me on a complex case as late as this year, just months before I sued him on behalf of Bruce Matzkin.
It’s no secret that I used to work for him as an employee, and with him as co-counsel. He’s a bad boss, and he can’t seem to hold onto to associates for more than a year or so. What set me apart, and what probably caused him to try to hire me back as an equal this year, is that I could hold my own with him. He and I both have the receipts of how nasty we can be to one another. And he knows my work, and my talent. He knows he has the ability to be a YouTuber, but he also knows that when it comes to real legal work, he has to outsource talent. He can’t hack it as a boss or as a lawyer on his own.
