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."

Donald Trump has lost his appeal to throw out the limited gag orders and associated fines in his civil fraud trial.

In a decision Thursday, New York's Appellate Division, First Department rejected Trump's request to annul and vacate the limited gag orders imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron that prohibit Trump and attorneys from commenting on the judge's staff.

In November, Trump's lawyers asked the Appellate Division to vacate the gag orders, citing a provision of New York state law to personally sue Judge Engoron. But the court said in today's ruling that the method used to appeal the gag orders was an improper application of the law.

"To the extent there may have been appealable issues with respect to any of the procedures the court implemented in imposing the financial sanctions, the proper method of review would be to move to vacate the Contempt Orders, and then to take an appeal from the denial of those motions," the ruling said, indicating that Trump should use the normal appellate process to pursue the vacating of the gag orders.

The court also determined that the "extraordinary remedy" requested by Trump's lawyers did not match the minimal potential harm from barring statements about Engoron's staff.

"Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court's staff," the decision said.