Citing their ethical obligations, lawyers for the defendants in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial declined to provide details about "rumors of any kind" involving former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and urged Judge Arthur Engoron to make a decision solely based on the evidence presented at trial, after Engoron asked them to weigh in on public reports that Weisselberg was engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan DA's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.

In a letter submitted to Judge Engoron Wednesday, defense attorney Clifford Robert urged the judge to strictly consider the record from the trial in his final decision, describing his request to provide information about Weisselberg based on a New York Times article "unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling."

"The Article simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg's testimony in this case. Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court's request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling," Robert wrote.

In a separate letter, Alina Habba -- who represents Weisselberg in the civil case but is not his criminal defense lawyer -- declined to provide any information about the potential perjury and argued that no further action was needed on the matter.

"The New York Times article is neither admissible nor reliable, and it should not be considered in Your Honor's determination as to the merits of this case," Habba wrote. "We urge you to render your decision based solely on the evidence now before you."

"Court decisions are supposed to be made based on the evidence at trial, not on media speculation," defense attorney Chris Kise said in a statement.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said on Wednesday that the potential perjury-related guilty plea of former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg should have no bearing on the outcome the civil fraud case against former President Trump.

The attorney's general's office said it is unaware whether Weisselberg committed perjury while testifying in the case, but does not believe "this development should result in any delay of a final decision."

Judge Arthur Engoron had asked the parties to weigh in after it was publicly reported that Weisselberg was engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan district attorney's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.

"In sum, the fact that a defendant who lacks credibility and has already been to prison for falsifying business documents may have also perjured himself in this proceeding or the preceding investigation is hardly surprising," the AG's office said in a filing Wednesday, adding that "it should not delay a final decision and judgment imposing remedial measures in this law enforcement proceeding."

Weisselberg testified during the trial that he was only peripherally involved in certifying the size of Trump's Fifth Avenue apartment, but on the witness stand he was confronted with email suggesting otherwise.

Judge Arthur Engoron is requesting more information about potential perjury committed by defendant Allen Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization CFO, according to an email shared on the court's docket.

As ABC News has reported, Weisselberg is in plea talks with the Manhattan district attorney's office to resolve a potential perjury charge, according to sources familiar with the matter.

"As the presiding magistrate, the trier of fact, and the judge of credibility, I of course want to know whether Mr. Weisselberg is now changing his tune, and whether he is admitting he lied under oath in my courtroom at this trial," Engoron wrote in an email he sent to the parties on Monday.

Engoron requested both parties to send him a letter by Wednesday at 5 p.m. ET detailing "anything you know about this that would not violate any of your professional ethics or obligations."

"I would also appreciate knowing how you think I should address this matter, if at all, including the timing of the final decision," Engoron added.

The judge is still weighing his decision in the $370 million fraud case, which he originally indicated would come by the end of January.

Trump attorney Clifford Robert on Monday blasted a report issued last week by the former judge appointed to monitor the Trump Organization as an inaccurate depiction of the firm's finances intended to justify the continued oversight of the company.

Robert, in his letter Monday to Judge Arthur Engoron, said the report from independent monitor Barbara Jones "twists immaterial accounting items into a narrative favoring her continued appointment, and thereby the continued receipt of millions of dollars in excessive fees," arguing that her report represented an "unacceptable level of disingenuity."

"This is truly a joke," Trump attorney Chris Kise told ABC News in a statement. "Indeed, it is shocking that President Trump has been forced to pay millions for a Monitor to prove what he has said from the outset, namely, there is no financial reporting misconduct, no fraud and simply no basis for this abusive process to continue."

Taking the witness stand as an expert witness for the defense, accountant Jason Flemmons offered testimony in support of Donald Trump's approach to valuing his Mar-a-Lago property, which has been the subject of debate throughout the seven weeks of the trial.

In his summary judgment decision, Judge Engoron found that Trump overvalued the estate by at least 2,300% because the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the property's market value between $18 and $27.6 million after Trump signed a deed that restricted its use to a social club, potentially limiting its resale value as a residence but ensuring a tax cut. Trump, in contrast, listed its value in his financial statement between $426 million and $612 million, and during his appearances in court and online he has repeatedly attacked Engoron's finding.

Flemmons argued that Trump's approach to valuing his assets gave him latitude to consider his property's future revenue streams. That approach, according to Flemmons, could result in "wildly different values" between the numbers listed on a personal financial statement and a tax assessed value.

"Tax assessed values are typically on the lower end of the spectrum," Flemmons said, while Engoron looked on attentively.

While he never mentioned Mar-a-Lago by name, Flemmons was asked by defense attorney Jesus Suarez about a hypothetical property assessed at $18 million but valued closer to $500 million using a comparable sales approach -- the same approach used to value Mar-a-Lago.

"It would not be unusual to have a value in the hundreds of million using projected cash receipts," Flemmons said.

Engoron then turned his chair toward Flemmons and began asking his own questions.

"I am trying to get to the order of magnitude we are talking about here," Engoron said. "What is the highest value you have ever seen legitimately placed on such a property?"

Flemmons could not provide a specific example to answer Engoron's question but reiterated that a massive discrepancy could be appropriate.