Keith Fink is a fast-talking, slick-haired attorney who says he thrives on the punch and counterpunch of high-stakes litigation and trials.

But recently, Fink has taken some hits. The West L.A. attorney has found himself attacked as a celebrity stalker because of his battle with American Apparel Inc. Chief Executive Dov Charney.

The sudden notoriety stems from a series of lawsuits that Fink has filed on behalf of former American Apparel employees against the company, alleging sexual harassment and wrongful termination, as well as labor code violations and other infractions.

What’s noteworthy about all this is that the colorful and controversial 39-year-old Charney is among other high-profile personalities who have found themselves in a fight with Fink.

The accused celebrity tormentor took on talk show host Ellen DeGeneres last year after she breached a pet adoption agreement. She had given an adopted dog to her hairstylist because the dog wasn’t working out in her home. Such transfers are against the adoption policies, and Fink jumped in on behalf of the adoption agency.

He attacked DeGeneres through the media, which drove her to tears on television when she told the story to her audience. She also canceled two episodes because of the matter.

Fink has also filed suit against Brad Pitt’s agent, Todd Shemarya, for allegedly parading around the workplace naked. And John Lydon, better known as Sex Pistols singer Johnny Rotten, also received the Fink treatment for allegedly punching a female talent agent in the face.

Fink has not been fearful of boosting his profile. He’s made occasional guest appearances on the now-canceled Judge Judy-esque show called “Power of Attorney,” which also featured high-profile attorneys Gloria Allred and the late Johnnie Cochran.

Fink has been derided by critics as a Hollywood version of an ambulance chaser who targets celebrities. A Fast Company writer noted last week on the business publication’s blog that he’s “a lawyer who confirms all bad lawyer stereotypes.”

Some attorneys say Fink’s modus operandi is to embarrass his targets through scandal.

“It’s tragic when an attorney uses the legal system to humiliate and embarrass innocent bystanders in an effort to force quick settlements,” said Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesperson for Shemarya.

A DeGeneres spokesperson did not return calls.

Fink denies that he sues celebrities as a shakedown scheme. He said American Apparel executives are trying to turn the tables on him.

“They keep throwing out there that I hate celebrities,” Fink said. “There are three celebrities I have sued in my career. Charney is not a celebrity, but he thinks he is a celebrity.”

The suits against Charney have intensified the spotlight on the edgy Los Angeles entrepreneur and his clothing empire, which is known for its sexually suggestive ad campaigns.

Charney said that Fink is attempting to cash in on American Apparel’s sexualized advertising imagery in the scandalous allegations that fill Fink’s suits against the company.

“He feeds into stereotypes in order to create a perception that there is some malfeasance going on, and it’s not true,” said Charney.

Fink filed three lawsuits against American Apparel. The first was in May 2005, the second was five weeks ago and the third was last week. The first and third, filed by women, alleged sexual harassment and wrongful termination. The second, filed by a man, alleged wrongful termination and some other charges.

Skimpy thong

Fink’s firm of 10 attorneys includes two lawyers that he calls his American Apparel team. American Apparel newspaper and magazine articles are in frames on the wall of his offices.

The first lawsuit was brought by former independent contractor Mary Nelson, and includes allegations that Charney wore a skimpy thong at work. In that case, American Apparel agreed to give $1.3 million to Nelson in exchange for an arbitrator’s ruling that was pre-determined to exonerate Charney and the company of Nelson’s sexual harassment claims. Such pre-determined arbitrations are occasionally used as a part of a larger settlement agreement.

The settlement deal crumbled after Fink refused to attend arbitration, and the appellate court ruled in October that Fink breached his agreement with American Apparel as a result. The case is scheduled for arbitration early next year in which the outcome would not be pre-determined.

After Fink backed out, it was Charney who got roughed up in the press coverage that followed.

However, American Apparel claims that Fink proposed the deal the $1.3 million in exchange for the arbitration ruling favoring American Apparel after Fink admitted that Nelson’s claims were phony.

A sworn but unfiled declaration signed by Joyce Crucillo, American Apparel’s general counsel, states that “Mr. Fink admitted to me that his client’s sexual harassment claims were ‘bogus.'”

Fink won’t discuss the case at all, he said, because of a confidentiality agreement.

Adam Levine, one of American Apparel’s outside attorneys at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, said that Fink and Nelson made their accusations in order to humiliate Charney, with the theory he would be willing to settle to end the pain.

“There are what I believe to be unscrupulous lawyers out there who generate damaging publicity and force the defendants to settle,” Levine said. “That is what this case is all about. Early on in the case, Mr. Fink sent an e-mail in which he suggests that if Mr. Charney paid $2 million, he could avoid public humiliation. Mr. Charney has done nothing wrong, and did not give in to the demand.”

The battle escalated when Fink filed the recent additional suits against American Apparel and Charney.

The first was filed in early November by former American Apparel employee Roberto Hernandez, who worked in the company’s accounting department but was not an accountant. Hernandez alleges that Charney instructed him to pad American Apparel’s inventory in order to raise investor money.

American Apparel attorney Levine disputes Hernandez’s claims.

“Mr. Hernandez’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated is pure fiction,” Levine said. “He was never instructed to pad inventory, and what’s more, Mr. Charney had no involvement whatsoever in his termination. These claims appear to have been concocted by Mr. Hernandez’s lawyer, Keith Fink.”

In the shower

Hernandez’s suit also details a laundry list of Charney’s alleged inappropriate sexual comments and behavior. Hernandez was required to have a business meeting while Charney showered in his presence, according to one claim.

Fink said American Apparel offered Hernandez a $41,000 settlement several weeks ago, but that his client did not accept it. Levine declined to comment on the settlement offer.

Fink sued American Apparel for a third time on behalf of another ex-employee last week. American Apparel had anticipated the suit and had prepared a pre-emptive suit against Fink’s client. Both suits were filed Dec. 1.

American Apparel general counsel Crucillo said the company knew Fink was going to file suit on behalf of former customs order manager Wei Ween Yang, also known as Nikky Yang.

American Apparel’s pre-emptive suit asked the judge to dismiss the case because the statute of limitations had run out, but it was also designed to get the company’s side of the story in the press alongside Fink’s.

“We wanted to come forward early on and state our position supported by documents and evidence that neither Mr. Charney nor the company have engaged in any acts of sexual harassment or discrimination against Nikky Yang,” Crucillo said.

Yang’s suit does allege various sexually charged acts by Charney. She claims, for example, that he demanded she work at his house. When she arrived, he was naked.

But American Apparel’s suit includes e-mail exchanges between Yang and Charney, which the company alleges were inappropriate requests from Yang for financial help in various forms. The company’s suit states that Yang was seeking to exploit Charney.

Fink waved off the pre-emptive suit.

“It’s a stupid strategic move, and they are only doing it for media publicity,” Fink said.

A Los Angeles native, Fink first got involved with American Apparel and Charney after a client referred Nelson to him. He then met Hernandez and Yang.

Several describe Fink as aggressive. And Fink admits that, as an undergrad at UCLA, he spent more time perfecting his debating skills than studying.

“My constitution is made to roll up my sleeves and fight,” he said.

Fink has remained active at the Westwood campus, and lecturers in UCLA’s department of communication studies.

Fink graduated from Southwestern Law School in 1989, and practiced at three different law firms until 1997, when he launched Fink & Feldman with his brother-in-law. Fink’s brother-in-law left the firm in 2000, and Fink then revamped it as Keith A. Fink & Associates.

His office is in a nondescript office and medical building on Olympic Boulevard not far from the San Diego (405) Freeway. The halls of his office are lined with colorful caricatures of rock stars such as The Rolling Stones and comedians Laurel and Hardy.

Relaxing last week in his office, the attorney coyly hinted that Charney faces additional lawsuits.

“Several more will follow,” he said. “From high-level ex-American Apparel employees.”