He'd have a very hard time winning. In many jurisdictions there is a "substantial truth" doctrine: if a statement gives an impression that's substantially close to the truth, it's considered OK, even if technically false. Once you add in how many people typically react to this sort of thing...
The claim "he defended Epstein and says his victims were willing", as for example the Vice article writes, is not substantially close to the truth. It is false absolutely.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth