What Does “Justice For Clayton” Look Like? Let me tell you….

If you’re following the Owens v. Echard case, you have probably seen a LOT of folks talking about how they want to see “Justice for Clayton!”. There’s a JFC Twitter account. There’s a JFC GoFundMe page. I’m guessing JFC t-shirts are next (idea: JFC condoms?)

But what exactly does Justice for Clayton look like? At the end of the day, all that happened here (from a legal perspective) is Laura hooked up with a guy (Clayton) who she thought was interested in her. Sadly, it turned out the feelings were NOT mutual. Sucks, but that’s life.

Laura claims she got pregnant, and she did exactly what you would expect — she tried to talk to Clayton about the situation. Yes, I know some people think she didn’t handle this very well. That’s fair and I’m not judging your harsh opinions of Laura…..of course, maybe you’d have a different view if you walked a mile in her shoes, as the saying goes.

But here’s the thing — this is a very strange twist of fate, but I HAVE walked a mile in Clayton’s shoes. Literally.

When I was in my mid-20s, I hooked up with a girl on spring break. Days later, she called and said those two words you just don’t want to hear in that situation: “I’m pregnant.”

Just like Clayton, my initial response was: “Wait a second, we only hooked up once, and that was like 6 days ago. How can you possibly know you’re pregnant that soon?”

It sounded impossible, but she promised me — it’s possible.

Unlike Clayton, my response was very different. I told this young lady first and foremost, the decision about what to do was entirely up to her. I barely knew her, but I explained IF I was the father, I would absolutely do the right thing and support her in any way necessary. As a man (even a young one), I just couldn’t imagine turning my back on my own child, no matter what the circumstances were. Who would do that? It’s not the child’s fault that he/she came into this world unexpectedly.

So the girl decided to keep the baby. Nine months later, she called again and asked me to send a picture of my ear lobe. To my shock and surprise, apparently there are two types of ear lobes — attached and non-attached, and this is apparently a reliable way of determining paternity. If the child has an attached lobe and the mom does not, that means the father MUST have the same type as the kid…because, genetics. No idea if that’s true, but Google seems to think it’s 100% accurate.

This was 1996. Phones didn’t have cameras. I probably mailed her a photo taken on film and dropped off at Walgreens.

Some time later, I got the call — you don’t have the right kind of earlobes. You can’t be the dad.

In the year 2024, maybe I would have responded differently, but in 1996, I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. I went off to law school in 1997 thinking I’d dodged a bullet.

Little did I know, 10 years later in 2006 that bullet would come back. I was sitting in my office on the 20th floor of an office building in Phoenix when the receptionist buzzed me: “Um yeah, David? There’s someone here with some papers for you.”

Papers? By this time I was a lawyer, and getting served with papers was hardly unusual. But not with my name listed as the Respondent in a paternity establishment case.

I later learned my spring break fling had some personal problems. I think she ended up applying for public health benefits for her child. When that happens, the State of Arizona asks: “Hey, why should AZ taxpayers have to pay for this kid? Where’s the father? Let’s find him and make him pay.”

So they asked the mom who the dad was, and my name was given. This resulted in the Arizona Attorney General filing a paternity action against me on behalf of the Department of Economic Security.

The allegations in the petition shocked me: “David Gingras is the father of this poor, desperate child. David Gingras has abandoned his child. David Gingras has refused to pay any support for his child.” It was harsh to see those words in a legal filing, especially since: A.) the mom told me I was not the father, and B.) no one from the AG’s office contacted me about this before the case was filed in court. Isn’t there ANY due diligence requirement?

The papers included a summons with a court date, so I showed up in court (without a lawyer). The judge (who I knew from other cases) asked me: “So, what do you want to do about this?”

That seemed like a strange question, but little did I know — Arizona law actually allows people to “voluntarily admit” paternity even if they are NOT the biological parent of the child. It’s kind of like adoption — some people just WANT to be a parent to a child, even if it’s not YOUR child. That’s what the judge meant when he asked what I wanted to do. He was giving me the option of just saying: “Yeah, I’ll be the parent of this kid, even if I’m not actually her father.”

I’m a generous person, but I couldn’t see taking responsibility for a child that wasn’t mine, so I told the judge we should just take a test and see what happens. The AG had no objection, so we did a test, and guess what? The earlobe thing WAS 100% right. I was not the dad. At least for me, that was the end of that.

So yes, exactly like Clayton (maybe), I was wrongfully sued for paternity. The Attorney General’s allegations against me were 100% false. I did NOT abandon my child. I’m NOT a heartless deadbeat dad.

But unlike Clayton, I didn’t turn around and accuse the Arizona Attorney General’s Office of “fraud!” I didn’t seek revenge. I didn’t demand JUSTICE.

The AG’s office made a good faith mistake. They relied on the best information available, and that information turned out to be wrong. Under the law, that does NOT mean I was automatically entitled to sanctions (which seems to be Clayton’s attitude). The law NEVER, EVER requires people to be 100% perfect when they file a case in court. All that is required is a good faith basis to think your claims are probably true. If you can clear that SUPER-LOW hurdle, no judge will ever sanction you just because your claims later turn out to be wrong.

That’s not a bad thing. In the old days, when people had disputes, they’d challenge you to a duel with pistols on main street at high noon. 50 paces, turn and fire. That’s how disputes were resolved. It was messy, loud, and probably not fair. But it was fast, and cheap.

Today, we have a more civilized legal system to help people solve their disputes. We want to ENCOURAGE people to come to court rather than using violence or other means to solve a dispute. And as part of that, we know that sometimes people will bring claims that turn out to be wrong.

That’s why I am SO confused at the angry “Justice for Clayton” fans who explain: “Most of us are primarily interested in how to make sure this does not happen to any more men. False accusations help none of us.”

Yeah, OK, that’s true. But in the world of false allegations, a mistaken (even groundless) allegation of paternity is one of the easiest, quickest, and cheapest to disprove. It’s like shooting someone with a Nerf dart. Any collateral damage is virtually zero. Seriously. I know, because it happened to me.

Let’s assume for a second that Laura was NEVER pregnant….or maybe she WAS pregnant, and Clayton wasn’t the father…..or maybe Clayton WAS the father, but Laura unknowingly had a very early miscarriage (which would explain a lot of the later events we’ve seen). In any of those situations, is it REALLY that big a deal? I just don’t see it that way. The only person making it a big deal is you-know-who (and his legal team, *cough cough*).

If Clayton wanted “justice”, all he had to do was exactly what I did — just take a very simple test, and let the results speak for themselves. If Laura was lying, there was never any chance that Clayton could ever fail that test. This should have taken about 5 minutes of his time, and the total legal fees would have been $0. And Laura would have lost, and Clayton would have his justice….whatever that means.

That’s why I just don’t understand this anti-Laura mob mentality. Personally, I think when this all comes out in court, people are going to realize they were COMPLETELY wrong about Laura. Like COMPLETELY.

But even if I’m wrong and Laura has lied about everything….SO FREAKIN’ WHAT? I personally have a judgment that proves beyond any doubt the AZ Attorney General brought a FALSE paternity claim against me….which took literally 5 minutes of my time and exactly $0 to disprove. It was over so fast, all I lost was maybe one hour of my time.

I got my justice in the end, and I’m fine with how it turned out.

So when I look at what Clayton is doing in this case…..all I can do is shake my head and wonder what on Earth this kid is thinking.

This Post Has 39 Comments

  1. Laura Owens

    This is such a bad take. Clayton TRIED to get Laura to take a paternity test. She refused until a court ordered it. Then the results came back THREE TIMES little to no fetal DNA because LAURA WAS NEVER PREGNANT. So Clayton couldn’t just simply take a paternity test. Not to mention, Laura allegedly miscarried BEFORE she filed the suit, then continued to defame Clayton, go to the media, write articles, gave pics of fake pregnancy bumps, etc. etc. This article is ridiculous.

    1. David Gingras

      My understanding of the facts is that you have this all wrong. But let’s wait to see what comes out at trial.

      1. Sarah Navarro

        It seems like either you haven’t read up on what happened prior to you joining the case or your client is continuing her lies. Maybe both?

        1. David Gingras

          What am I missing? Educate me. Ears are WIDE open.

      2. Eleanor

        You keep saying “let’s wait to see what comes out at trial” while continuing to blog and tweet about the case. I hope you see the contradiction.

        1. David Gingras

          I’m only blogging/tweeting about selective issues. I wish I could share everything right now, but that’s not appropriate.

          And try to remember- there are bloggers/vloggers who are literally doing videos about this case ALMOST every day. And their coverage is insanely one-sided. So yes, as much as I’d prefer not to be fighting against the disinformation campaigns, I don’t really have a choice. Tell Clayton’s army to stop talking until the trial, and you won’t hear a peep from me until then.

      3. Jason

        Why don’t the two of them just have a duel? Seems like that worked out better in the past. Kind of seems weird blogging about your client though. I do wonder if when you found out your “Spring Break fling” was pregnant, was it mentioned online, brought to the press, you were apparently outed to the world? I assume this, since you “walked” in his shoes. I guess you are right, we will all see the ultrasound in a couple of months. Miscarriage in July, filed in family court in August, had a belly in October and November, and claimed in emails that she was 100% pregnant in December. I dont know about you, but that just doesn’t add up to me.

      4. Liar

        Sshhhhh ………. stop talking now, we’ve all got second hand embarrassment for you. I wonder how many future clients will avoid you like the plague, it seems irresponsible for a lawyer to be blogging about a current case. It also seems that you are not bothered about your client being a big fat LIAR, (yes I’m saying she lied) so maybe you are perfect for each other. Your telling of her story has equally as many holes and discrepancies. Such a complete waste of judicial resources, but I’m sure you are getting plenty of those sweet dollars to line YOUR pockets, while insulting and demeaning the public.
        Oh, nearly forgot, excellent news that another pregnancy faker is going to JAIL for 16 years in Maracopa County. There’s still hope that Liar Owens will finally be held accountable for her disgusting, dare I say, CRIMINAL actions (false accusations of rape should be criminal ).

        All the best!

      5. Better Call Saul Type Of Lawyer

        What is your “understanding” of Laura having a full, pregnant belly after having her miscarriage in JULY? What is your “understanding” of her having 5 other victims with this same scheme dating back to 2014? I am a lawyer and come from a family of 7 other lawyers and cannot wait until you are featured in the documentary!

  2. Bob

    I don’t understand this post. It’s like you know nothing about this case. Clayton has already taken 3 DNA tests, all of which show he is not the father. Laura Owens just refuses to accept the results.

    1. David Gingras

      That’s actually NOT what the DNA tests show. But if you think that, it’s fine.

      1. Clare Parks

        When you first entered your appearance, your position was “if I find out she’s lying I’ll drop her like a hot potato…” Now your position is “so what if she’s lying?” I understand your duty to represent your client, but this is just perpetuating fraud…

        Do you realize you have three different timelines regarding the alleged miscarriage?

        P.S. Clayton already appeared before the Real Estate Board regarding your client’s allegations. They cleared him. That detail may undermine your client’s claims against him in that regard….

        1. David Gingras

          OK, this case has become SUCH an interesting example of how lies, defamation, and propaganda can be used to make people believe literally anything. I’ve been around a long time and I’ve seen a lot of things, but I’ve never seen the level of willful blindness to the truth as is happening here.

          Let’s take one example: “Clayton already appeared before the Real Estate Board regarding your client’s allegations. They cleared him.”

          Now let’s look at the facts — your statement is 100% FALSE. Don’t take my word for it, let’s just look at the letter from the AZ Department of Real Estate explaining their findings: “The Department has reached an investigative conclusion regarding your complaint against Clayton Echard. The Department found the failure to submit an offer from a client was a violation of ARTICLE 11. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT R4-28-1101.”

          Got that? Clayton LIED to Laura about the offers she asked him to submit (he lied more than once about this). Laura reported him to the AZ Department of Real Estate. They DID NOT “clear” him. On the contrary, they specifically found he VIOLATED ETHICAL RULES when he lied to Laura.

          But yes, please do go on and tell me how Laura is such a bad, dishonest person….


          1. Baby Faker

            What about when Laura admitted IN COURT that she LIED about doctoring the ultrasound??

          2. Grant Chester

            You deflected. Let’s focus on Laura’s lies right now. We can talk about Claytons after you explain that you know your client lied but are still her lawyer.

        2. Innocent Bystander

          Such good points! Nicely done.

    2. Money Hungry

      He doesn’t know anything about the case and just took it for the money.

  3. Pam Cameron

    I’m a lawyer and you’re an embarrassment to the profession. I don’t have time to explain why but there is nothing analogous between your paternity story and Clayton’s. Laura has told so many lies about so many men, one can’t keep track. She has manipulated and victimized him relentlessly. You took one test and never heard from the woman again. And oh yeah she was actually pregnant and you had intercourse.

    1. Greasy Lawyer

      Agreed. He is slimy as all get-out and I cannot wait until he A. drops Laura as a client as the 5 previous lawyers have. B. He is exposed in the documentary as the sleezeball he is.

  4. JJ

    Laura, if you are reading this, what you are doing is emotional extortion. I am sorry for whatever happened in your past to get you to this place. It had to have been so traumatic. It’s time to right the wrongs and start healing. You deserve a full and loving life and are capable of having that. This mess can eventually become the wound that broke the toxic patterns and set you free to build a life with emotional security and self worth. I’m sure this is all really scary. I can’t imagine the pressure you feel and how much you want the world to see your worth. There is freedom and strength in truth. You are intelligent, beautiful, talented, and capable of having a life without all this chaos.

    1. David Gingras

      I don’t think Laura reads this page on a regular basis, but I forwarded your comments to her.

    2. Innocent Bystander

      JJ – What nice words! If Laura had played her cards right, this COULD HAVE BEEN a Cinderella story!

  5. Anonymous

    I’m probably a minority in that I’m following this case but not necessarily part of the “jfc” crew. I don’t think it’s fair to make assumptions until now evidence is seen though I admit all evidence out there really supports Clayton’s side. I agree it’s reasonable to assume she did think she was pregnant (or even was early on)… Heck, Clayton believed it enough to take a test. I’m sure if you really did NOTHING that was even at risk of getting someone pregnant you wouldn’t bat an eye. BUT here is where I think the difference is that makes everyone mad. She didn’t just miscarry and then move on………. she faked ultrasounds (which she admitted) and while she hasn’t admitted to it I think it’s obvious that she faked an ongoing pregnancy while knowing she wasn’t pregnant (ie: showing up to court in November with a bump). now whether all of that stuff is related enough to get her trouble in court? I don’t know. I’m not involved in law enough. But I think that’s at least the basis of everyone being so angry.

    In my personal opinion, I really do think she was pregnant or reasonably thought she was pregnant in the beginning. But I think she learned that she wasn’t very early on and instead of admitting that she continued to fake the pregnancy. That is the part that upsets me personally, as a woman who has had struggles getting pregnant and miscarrying before

    1. David Gingras

      These are totally reasonable and fair comments, and I’m sorry to hear about your own miscarriage.

      Just wait for the trial. Laura WAS pregnant. The evidence on that point is basically as close to 100% as you can get. As for when the pregnancy ended, the evidence on that is a little less clear, but we’re going to have some expert testimony that should help everyone understand.

      Did you know that a woman could become pregnant (including with twins), have the fetus grow for a while, and then she could lose the pregnancy WITHOUT ever passing a stillborn child?

      I, for one, did NOT know this….but now I do. It’s called “vanishing twin syndrome”, and it’s absolutely medically possible.


      1. Trippy

        You in emails to woodnick said you had the photo that Laura sent to her sister and the texts between her and her sister and the date was 23rd July and Laura in her depo said she sent photo to her sister and telehealth person. So did they vanish without her knowing or did Laura lie in her depo and did you lie in your emails to Greg when you said you had the photos.

  6. Ivy

    I am not trying to be a jerk but surely as a lawyer with presumably above average analytical ability, can you not see that this is a completely apples to oranges comparison? What you’re talking about is standard garden variety Jerry Springer paternity determination that’s been done a million times. Laura’s entire saga is so far beyond normal she’s on another (criminal) planet! To name one big difference, I assume you had sex with this individual. Friendly reminder that this is how pregnancies happen. Literally everyone who’s older than ninth grade knows that you can’t get pregnant from being in external proximity to semen. So she could start by explaining this conundrum.

    I look forward to all these records that will completely blow our minds and make us take back everything. She has been promising this for months. Why would she sit on all this exculpatory evidence for months?! I hope it’s better than the big 102 HCG reveal.

    Also I second everything JJ said above. Laura, get some help : (

  7. Ashley

    Hi David! I’m wondering what your take is on the 500+ emails that Laura sent to Clayton begging him to be in a relationship with her (all prior to filing this paternity case)? She threatened to trash him on Reddit, magazines, social media, and involve the court system if he refused to “give her a chance”. Do you think this is appropriate, legal behavior? Does this not fall under blackmail, fraud, or extortion?

    And what about her email to Clayton’s lawyer where she threatened to sue him for over a million dollars?

    Will you be able to justify all of that in court? Or do you feel none of it is relevant?

    1. David Gingras

      So weirdly, I don’t actually have the 500+ emails you’re talking about. It’s technical, but I don’t think they are relevant to THIS part of the case (the paternity part). Those MIGHT be relevant to the harassment side of the case, but I’m not involved in that part (yet). I just appeared for Laura in harassment side of things, and I’ll get to that when I can.

      BUT, let me answer this question: “And what about her email to Clayton’s lawyer where she threatened to sue him for over a million dollars?”

      Do you know what actually happened with that issue? When Laura first met Clayton, she wanted his help to look for investment properties (Clayton is a realtor). Laura ended up seeing two properties she wanted to buy, and she asked Clayton to prepare written purchase offers for those properties. Laura signed those offers on May 24, 2023 — that was literally 4 days after they first hooked up, and BEFORE Laura said anything to Clayton about being pregnant.

      Rather than submitting Laura’s offers to the property sellers, Clayton threw them in the trash. He never submitted them, and then he lied to her about this (TWICE). When asked to explain his actions, Clayton offered this LAME excuse: “Well, yeah, I didn’t think she was serious about those offers.”

      You may not know this, but when Laura submitted those offers (which would have been legally binding agreements if they had been accepted), Laura attached a copy of her recent bank statement that showed she had nearly $450,000 in cash in her checking account. I don’t know about you, but that certainly makes it look like she was serious about going through with those offers.

      And here’s the other weird thing — by lying to Laura about the offers, Clayton put himself at serious risk of personal liability. The Arizona Department of Real Estate made a finding that Clayton’s actions violated the standards of professional conduct for realtors, and at the end of the day, Laura absolutely could take legal action against Clayton based on his actions (i.e., fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty).

      That part of the case is still SUCH a mystery to me — it’s an undisputed fact that Clayton LIED to Laura BEFORE she said anything about being pregnant, and Clayton’s actions could have resulted in Laura suing him for big, big damages (something she threatened, but has not done).

      So yeah, I guess you can criticize Laura for sending too many emails to Clayton. But if you stand back and look at WHO lied FIRST, the answer is Clayton. And WHO engaged in illegal, inappropriate conduct first? That was Clayton.

      1. Grant Chester

        I believe Clayton explained this on Nick Viall podcast, I don’t remember what exactly was said and not saying it was accurate. But it would solve the “mystery” part for you.

        1. Grant Chester

          Maybe not his, but it was def talked about somewhere.

      2. Lisa

        I find it hard to understand how you’re able to say you walked in claytons shoes without reading Laura’s correspondence (both with clayton; his family; and the media) where it appears she was using every possible avenue to extract revenge on clayton and control him as long as possible (refusing to take tests without him stipulating to dating her etc; sending doctored sonograms/blood tests to media as proof of pregnancy; threatening his livelihood and reputation). Prior to the Hippa notice being signed; she was pretty brazen with her statements on receiving appropriate OB care for a high risk pregnancy. Once you entered the picture she had already been caught in a bunch of lies; cleaned up her story and knew she could no longer rely on doctored evidence so really scaled back her claims to HPTs and neurologists. But it was clear she knew the care she should have been receiving via the claims and effort to doctor evidence to show she had it in order to continue having power over clayton as long as possible (It appears a very similar set of events happened multiple times showing a pattern of behavior which you have to take into some account). Again all allegations. But there is a clear paper trail of her doctoring prior twin sonograms with Greg as well. I dont even know the lies she was caught in for the first case. But saying you understand what clayton went through with the barage of false statements and manipulating evidence and dragging this saga on as long as possible seems like a highly unfair statement without doing your due dilligence to read the correspondence. I assume you’ll say its not relevant to this case but if you’re threatening to sue everyone media/supporters/her lawyers etc. don’t you want to understand the full extent of this relationship and claims and falsified evidence and her history prior to issuing legal threats? (again this is purely me being curious about all aspects of this case i’m a CPA work in finance no law background so i totally get i dont understand the specific legality of what matters and why and how it all ties together just couldn’t help adding in my 2cents (and i judge myself for continuing to comment here can’t help myself!)

  8. Lonni

    You are a lawyer? If so, I find it odd that you state “I HAVE walked a mile in Clayton’s shoes. Literally.” Ummm, I’m no genius, but I am fairly certain you have not “Literally” walked in Clayton’s shoes. That’s a very dumb thing to say, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe at some point you did have a pair of his shoes and walk a mile in them though.

  9. Beth

    David, I’m glad you are onto reading the 500 texts and emails – I suspect it will be a big help in your overall understanding of the situation. For instance, if you had read just the ones that were submitted to court, you would have known that most of us following are well aware of the real estate situation. Clayton did not make the right move. But read those texts specifically and try to really put yourself in “Clayton’s shoes”. His boss and the real estate board were able to understand the context- so certainly you will too. I am curious to your thoughts about the amount she is threatening to sue over? I believe it is over the current value of the properties she was prevented from purchasing. I ask because it seems like an amount that is just being used for intimidation rather than any kind of logic. Anyway, looking forward to your answer and I’m also hopeful you will release some of the text messages as you go through them – will definitely bring some more attention to your twitter+blog and add some variation to the conversation!

    1. Innocent Bystander

      Why is no one talking about how she BEGGED Clayton to date her but is now claiming SA?

  10. kj

    You and Laura are PERFECT for each other. This is getting very interesting. Good luck with what is in front of you.

    1. David Gingras

      I am married (16 years) and I don’t date clients. But thanks.

      1. Laura’s 7th Victim

        Neither does Gregg Woodnick, but she claimed he dr*gged & r*ped her, so be careful… she has a lot of money and has complained to the bar about each of her past lawyers… with your history, I’m sure that won’t be a good look…

  11. Tara

    Are you dense? Obviously your situation is nothing link Mr. Echard’s and you can’t possibly believe it is. I think you are just playing games with everyone, if not and you are completely serious I pity you and am truly concerned about your choices. Oh, and stop fishing for information online about how to get your client out of the mess she created is so transparent and pathetic. How unprofessional, are you really so willing to destroy your reputation for human garbage, or do you just see the dollar signs? I’m sure she will keep your bills paid for quite a while are you any good at criminal defense? Hopefully that’s the next representation your client will require.

    I would also like to address the way you explain the away some of your client’s actions, you are very good at saying part of the story but stopping before you have to concede she did anything wrong. Technically not lying, but lying by omission is just as bad. You and your client seem to have the same problem with the truth, just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. You know that right?

Comments are closed.