Thanks--for Nothing : The law: When Kitty Kelley listed attorney Mickey Rudin as a source for her Nancy Reagan biography, he decided to sue her.

It is a court battle over what has been sardonically dubbed “libel by ‘thank you.’ ”

In one corner stands Mickey Rudin, for four decades one of the most powerful entertainment lawyers in Hollywood, with a star-studded client roster that has included Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, George Burns, Lucille Ball, Elizabeth Taylor, Cher and Liza Minnelli.

In the other: Washington author Kitty Kelley, specialist in titillating, unflattering biographies of the rich and famous, who has become rich and famous in the process.

Rudin and Kelley are no strangers in a courtroom. Eight years ago, as Sinatra’s counsel, he unsuccessfully sued to halt publication of her expose on the singer, which was filled with details about Sinatra’s alleged ties to organized crime.

Now, in an unusual suit in federal court on his own behalf, Rudin has charged that Kelley has defamed him by inaccurately and maliciously listing him as a source for her newest potboiler, the unauthorized biography of former First Lady Nancy Reagan. His complaint alleges that he has been damaged “in excess of $50,000.”

Rudin contends that Kelley gives the false impression that he revealed confidential information about Sinatra, whom he represented from 1955 to 1987. According to “Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography,” the singer and Reagan were involved in a lengthy affair, including assignations during long White House “lunches.” Sinatra has denied such a relationship, Reagan has made no direct comment and Rudin says he does not believe the pair were an item.

The brassy author, Rudin asserts bluntly, was trying “to stick it up my fanny” in retaliation for the Sinatra suit, which charged that Kelley was misappropriating Sinatra’s name and likeness for commercial purposes.

“I think she listed me as a source to needle me, knowing damn well it would hurt me, wanting to embarrass me,” growled Rudin, a cigar smoker with a froggy voice, as he sat on the veranda of his Bel-Air home one recent morning.

“He’s angry, as I would be angry if someone hinted that I talked out of school,” says Beverly Hills tax lawyer Bruce Hochman, a longtime friend of the 70-year-old attorney. “In 45 years of practice, he hasn’t talked in his sleep. . . . Now (she) puts him in the book. She hit him where he lives. People are going to wonder--and he doesn’t want them to wonder.”

Kelley, who has appeared on talk shows nationwide hawking the book, is not commenting.

Her lawyers, however, have a ready retort: Rudin, they say, has no case, and they have filed papers urging U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles to dismiss it. They note that one of Rudin’s assistants, at his direction, referred one of Kelley’s researchers to a woman who provided “valuable information” for the book--and this, as far as they are concerned, makes his listing as a source perfectly appropriate.

If the case survives the initial challenges--the first hearing is scheduled for early September--it could shed new light on the reporting techniques of Kelley, who has been called “the doyenne of dirt.”

“It’s an exotic suit,” concedes Rod Smolla, a libel law specialist at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

Exotic or not, two Los Angeles lawyers, speaking on condition of anonymity, call this simply the latest rancorous incident between a combative lawyer who has frequently battled the press and a combative writer who savaged his biggest client in print.

“Mickey Rudin has had it out for Kitty Kelley for some time,” one says.

A casual reader of Kelley’s best-selling dissection of Reagan, published by Simon & Schuster, almost certainly would be unaware that Rudin has any connection to it. He is not quoted, nor does his name appear in the 528 pages of text.

In fact, his suit is based largely on three easily overlooked sentences Kelley wrote in the acknowledgments section:

“My sources made the most important contribution to this book, and I am grateful to all for their help. Not every interview could be used, but I appreciate the time and consideration of everyone who cooperated. . . .”

Immediately thereafter, she says “My thanks to,” followed by 612 names, including Rudin’s.

Kelley’s lawyer, Bradley S. Phillips, contends that the average reader simply would not conclude as a result of this listing that Rudin had violated a client’s confidences.

The one thing that both sides seem to agree on is that Rudin had no direct contact with Kelley about the book. And Rudin is hardly the only person to say that he was not a source. Among others, Lou Cannon, former Washington Post White House correspondent, and Jack Nelson, chief of The Times’ Washington Bureau, deny that they “shared stories” about the former First Lady.

The event that ignited the current hostilities came in the spring of 1989, when one of Kelley’s researchers, Pamela Warrick-Greenberg, called Rudin’s office and told one of his assistants that she wanted to ask him why the American Friends of Hebrew University had decided to present its Scopus Award for service to Israel to Nancy Reagan in 1981.

Rudin never offered Warrick-Greenberg an explanation, but his wife, Mary Carol, recalls that in the early 1980s, her husband and other longtime supporters of Hebrew University were trying to broaden its fund-raising base beyond traditional Jewish givers. The First Lady, she contends, was a desirable candidate because “Nancy would represent something as far from anything Jewish as you could imagine.”

When Warrick-Greenberg, now a part-time staff writer for The Times, called, Rudin told the assistant to refer her to Sally Fleg of the Hebrew University group. According to the court papers submitted by Kelley’s lawyers, Warrick-Greenberg called Fleg, and she provided “useful information.”

Then, on April 7, 1989, Warrick-Greenberg wrote Rudin a letter with 10 questions including: “Why was this award given to the First Lady and not to the President?” Among the others were queries about the extent of Nancy Reagan’s commitments to Israel and whether Sinatra, a prior recipient, had any meetings with Reagan or her staff regarding the award.

Rudin sent Warrick-Greenberg a brusque response: “The questions are inane and somewhat stupid. Therefore, I have to conclude that they are not framed in good faith. I wasn’t sure from the questions whether you were writing a book or an article for the National Enquirer or some other publication of the same ilk.”

Warrick-Greenberg fired back: “If you will not answer the questions regarding the 1981 Scopus Award, we will simply quote your letter as your answer.”

Rudin’s response was not printed in the book, however.

Shortly after the Reagan book was published last April, Rudin asked Simon & Schuster to issue a press release saying he had not been interviewed and to delete his name from the source list in any additional printings. The publishing house refused.

Rudin decided to go to court.

This is not the first defamation suit he has filed on his own behalf. In 1979, he alleged that Barron’s magazine libeled him by referring to him as “Sinatra’s mouthpiece.” In some years, up to 75% of Rudin’s time was devoted to handling the singer’s affairs.

The earlier suit parallels his action against Kelley in at least one respect--the importance of a single word; in the current case it is source. In the Sinatra case, Rudin contended that the term mouthpiece disparaged him because it is often used to refer to an attorney for organized crime. But he lost after a judge concluded that he had failed to prove that the average reader would draw the negative conclusions he alleged.

Rudin has been more successful in most of his press-related litigation. In 1983, he forced Random House to recall 58,000 copies of “Poor Little Rich Girl,” a potential bestseller on Woolworth heiress Barbara Hutton, because author C. David Heymann had incorrectly identified a Beverly Hills doctor, Rudin’s client, as having prescribed excessive drugs for her.

Kelley has been sued several times, but her principal lawyer, Washington-based Benjamin Zelenko, says she has not lost any cases.

Smolla, of William and Mary, says he believes that “Kitty Kelley has been caught in a screw-up. This is terrible journalism.” Nonetheless, he predicts Rudin will have a difficult time proving that he has been damaged.

“To the extent that (Kelley) left out what he said in the letter, to the extent she failed to give any context to what he said, she engaged in distortion,” he says. “But I don’t know if that’s good enough.”

Meanwhile, Victor Navasky, editor of The Nation and the man who coined the “libel by ‘thank you’ ” notion, says he is troubled by the concept of the suit.

“The way of dealing with false acknowledgments is to expose them, not to sue over them,” says Navasky, also an attorney. “People who might think he was a source, he can call on the phone and tell them he wasn’t.”

Rudin concedes that he knew his earlier suit against Kelley had “First Amendment problems” when he filed it--Sinatra dropped the case in 1984, after journalistic groups declared it “an assault” upon all writers’ constitutionally protected freedom of expression. But he says it was an effective means of letting people know Sinatra didn’t want them to help her.

Now, he again maintains Kelley should be punished. This suit, he says, has served part of its purpose: “In effect, I’ve printed my own denial.”