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."

Deutsche Bank was a serious company in business with Donald Trump to make money, defense attorney Jesus Suarez said during his cross examination of former Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh.

At the height of its relationship with the Trump Organization the company loaned Trump over $378 million, and failed to commission independent appraisals of Trump's properties, Haigh acknowledged. While the bank listed lower estimates for the value of Trump's assets year after year, it continued to do business with Trump and his company.

"We ... the bank hadn't done all the due diligence one would do in the sense of the opinion of value you see in an appraisal," Haigh said, at one point agreeing with the defense's characterization that the bank's internal value services group conducted "sanity checks'' on the numbers.

The direct examination of Haigh by state attorney Kevin Wallace also left a central question about Deutsche Bank's activity unanswered.

In a letter to the court and in previous arguments, lawyers for the attorney general suggested that Haigh might have turned away Trump's business if he had known that Trump's assets were inflated in value.

"As this Court noted during summary judgment arguments, Mr. Haigh testified during OAG's investigation that he may not have authorized lending to the borrower if he had at that time been aware of the inflated asset values contained in Mr. Trump's SFCs [statements of financial condition]," a lawyer for the attorney general wrote to the court in a letter last week.

Wallace never directly posed the hypothetical to Haigh during his direct examination, leaving the question unresolved.

Court subsequently adjourned for the day, with Suarez telling the court he plans to continue his cross examination of Haigh through Thursday afternoon.