One of the lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs withdrew from his defense team as the disgraced music mogul faces several civil lawsuits and a federal sexual abuse and racketeering case.

Attorney Anthony Ricco on Friday filed the motion to withdraw in New York Federal Court, with the request still awaiting final approval from the judge. Ricco declined to offer specifics regarding the reason for his request, citing attorney/client privilege, according to USA Today.

“Under no circumstances can I continue to effectively serve as counsel for Sean Combs,” the lawyer said. “It is respectfully but regrettably requested that the court grant the relief requested.”

His exit comes amid mounting legal pressure on the Bad Boy Records founder. Combs has denied several accusations of drugging and rape and is pleading not guilty to sex trafficking charges. He is charged under the Mann Act, officially the White-Slave Traffic Act, which prohibits the transport of people across state or international lines for prostitution.

The defense has called the Mann Act “racist” and historically “used to target Black men and supposedly protect white women from them.”

In court documents, the defense highlighted boxing legend Jack Johnson and musician Chuck Berry as prior high-profile examples of black men charged under the White-Slave Traffic Act.

PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40

One recent filing expanded on that argument, stating, “No other person, and certainly no white person, has ever previously been prosecuted under the White-Slave Traffic Act for hiring male escorts from another (state).” The filing asserted that Combs was being treated differently by federal authorities than white people in similar circumstances.

Additional complaints detailing alleged misconduct have continued to emerge in recent years, with attorneys for Combs categorically denying wrongdoing. His lawyers have moved to dismiss the federal indictment in New York, maintaining that the charges are misplaced and reflect selective enforcement rather than equal treatment under the law.

The federal judge presiding over the case has not yet indicated when a decision on a potential dismissal might be handed down.