We know what it's like to hear from Steve Bing's attorneys. After this item ran on tabloid cuz MollyGood, we had the pleasure of a few emails and phone calls with the lovely Lynda Goldman at (and where else would she work?) Lavely & Singer. In the end, Bing laughed off the whole incident.

But that's not how things went down with London's Daily Mail in 2003, when they claimed Bing hired Anthony Pellicano to dig up dirt on then-lover Liz Hurley, after she claimed she was pregnant with his child. Cue Bing's passion for threatening to sue, and the Mail caved — issuing a retraction and a cash apology.

Now, the NYT's David Halbfinger and Allison Hope Weiner are laying the groundwork for inviting Bing's infamous litigation with a report that evidence from the Pellicano trial shows Bing paid the P.I. thousands of dollars as early as 2000 and continued through 2002, though it's not clear whether that money was earmarked for investigating Hurley.

While Bing's camp at Lavely & Singer insist on his client's original story – that he didn't pay Pellicano to drudge up info on Hurley – Pellicano's bragging says otherwise.

In his sworn declaration, dated January 2002 but sent to lawyers for The Daily Mail a year later, Mr. Pellicano said he had “never been engaged by Mr. Bing nor his attorney Mr. Martin Singer to investigate anyone on Mr. Bing’s behalf, including Ms. Hurley.” He also denied that he had been contacted by Mr. Bing or Mr. Singer about Ms. Hurley, or that he had ever “discussed anything” about Mr. Bing or Ms. Hurley “with any member of the press including The Daily Mail at any time.” [...]

The evidence, much of it obtained by The New York Times, also includes audio recordings from April and May 2002 in which Mr. Pellicano boasts that he has been “working for,” “consulting for” or speaking for Mr. Bing about Ms. Hurley’s pregnancy with reporters for news outlets like People magazine.

On April 30, 2002, for example, Mr. Pellicano bragged to a client that he was working for Mr. Bing on the Hurley case, “though I haven’t admitted it to anybody,” and confided that he believed he knew the true paternity of Ms. Hurley’s child. (A DNA test seven weeks later proved that Mr. Bing was the father.)

All of which means the Daily Mail might be looking for their money back. And Marty Singer might have to face the possibility that – egads! – his star client might have lied to him.

(Lynda, if you're listening, you know our email.)