Michael Avenatti seen outside the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse in New York, with legal jujitsu is now privy to the contents of the Shera Bechard complaint

“You can’t sue someone in a very high-profile, public case, disseminate info to the Wall Street Journal, then tie defendant’s hands behind his back, when he doesn’t know what the allegations are, and let him twist in the wind. You can’t have it both ways,” he said.

Avenatti — famous as the outspoken, Twitter-loving lawyer representing porn star Stormy Daniels in her separate hush-money battle with President Trump — said Bechard could have filed a “bare-bones” complaint if she “truly wanted to litigate” her dispute with Broidy.

“What they want to do is have a circus and a show in the media and put pressure on Mr. Broidy,” he said, suggesting his attachment was a way to threaten Broidy with a harsh spotlight. “That’s not appropriate.”

Judge Ernest M. Hiroshige declined to overturn the order conditionally sealing the complaint for 20 days but said Bechard’s lawyer Victor O’Connell had to hand over the “entire un-redacted complaint” by email outside the courtroom and return for further arguments later Tuesday.

“It is under seal and they may not disclose any of the contents of the complaint,” the Los Angeles County Superior Court judge said.

“I’m happy that I’m going to finally get to see what the allegations are against me, but I think the public and the press should have full access to the complaint,” Avenatti maintains.

Avenatti previously said he had no idea why he was pulled into the legal battle with Broidy.

Former Playboy bunny Shera Bechard [photo], and her lawyers named Michael Avenatti as a defendant along with Elliott Broidy and Bechard’s former lawyer Keith Davidson in a complaint that was conditionally sealed for 20 days upon its filing Friday. The complaint, by court ruling is now available to Avenatti

Bechard’s complaint came just days after Broidy’s reported decision to halt his $200,000 installment payments on the pact.

A source told The News on Friday that Bechard is alleging Avenatti spoke publicly about her private pact with Broidy shortly before the Wall Street Journal confirmed the agreement in April.

“In last 18 mos, Mr. Cohen negotiated yet another hush NDA, this time on behalf of a prominent GOP donor who had a relationship with a LA woman, impregnated her and then made sure she had an abortion. The deal provided for multiple payments across many months,” Avenatti wrote in a Twitter post on April 12.

Speaking to The News last week, Avenatti called the accusation “laughable.”

“I never knew the terms of the (Bechard deal) or that there was any confidentiality provision,” he told The News. “If that is the basis for them suing me, they should be suing the Wall Street Journal reporters and every other reporter that reported on the alleged agreement.”

Davidson brokered Bechard’s deal with Broidy and was the same lawyer who represented Daniels when she signed her $130,000 hush-money agreement with Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen.

Cohen, meanwhile, was the lawyer who represented Broidy in the Bechard deal.

According to a recent story in the Wall Street Journal, Broidy decided to withhold his most recent $200,000 installment payment to Bechard because he now considers their agreement dead.

“Elliott specifically was paying for confidentiality that would shield his family from the embarrassing mistake he made,” Broidy’s lawyer Chris Clark from Latham & Watkins in New York told WSJ. “We can prove there was an intentional breach that renders the contract null and void.”

Clark claimed Davidson improperly disclosed details about the Bechard agreement to Avenatti.

Bechard reportedly got pregnant during her affair with Broidy and later had an abortion.

Her privacy pact, reached in late 2017, used the same aliases — “David Dennison” and “Peggy Peterson” — that Cohen used in the $130,000 NDA deal he brokered with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, in 2016.

Avenatti reportedly hinted during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in April that Broidy might not be the one who needed the agreement with Bechard.

“I think at some point we are going to find out if, in fact, the client in connection with the ($1.6 million) settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy. I’m going to leave it at that,” Avenatti said.