More than a year-and-three quarters has also passed since the State Bar said in a Sept. 27, 2022 news release:

“The State Bar of California’s Board of Trustees Chair Ruben Duran announced today that the State Bar is investigating attorneys Mark John Geragos (State Bar No. 108325) and Brian Stephen Kabateck (State Bar No. 152054) in connection with the Armenian Genocide insurance settlement funds from which dispersals were made in the U.S. and France.” in a matter in which the State Bar announced—possibly for the sake of publicity— that it was launching a probe of former Los Angeles County Bar Association President Brian Kabateck and criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos.”<

Under fire for its dereliction in failing to act on complaints about Thomas V. Girardi (now disbarred) until his dishonesty became manifest and widely reported by the news media, the announcement was made, possibly for sake of publicity. The move could backfire if the two are exonerated for a fourth time—or what would possibly be a fifth time as to Geragos.

The State Bar will not comment on what progress has been made. A spokesperson said on May 30, in response to a METNEWS inquiry:

“At this time, we can provide no update beyond what was stated in our earlier September 27, 2022 release.”

Kabateck has attained multi-million dollar judgments and settlements; Geragos is a criminal defense lawyer whose clients have included Whitewater defendant Susan McDougal, former Rep. Gary Condit, actress Winona Ryder, and entertainer Michael Jackson.

Kabateck and Geragos had obtained a settlement of $37.5 million in separate actions against two insurers who failed to pay claims under life insurance policies issued to persons who were slain in the Armenian genocide. Major attention has been focused in recent Los Angeles Times articles on what happened to proceeds from a $17.5 million settlement with a French insurer in 2005.

Questions have been raised as to whether the two lawyers pocketed any of the funds. While moneys are missing, the lawyers point out they had nothing to do with the distribution of the proceeds.

They were previously cleared of wrongdoing in at least three State Bar probes and one by independent investigators.

The State Bar’s press release quotes then-Board of Trustees Chair Ruben Duran as saying:

“The State Bar is charged with protecting the public. Confidence in our ability to do so has unfortunately been shaken in recent times by the Girardi matter and what it represents. Restoring and maintaining the public’s trust in the disciplinary apparatus of this agency is imperative.”

Geragos—who has said he will be suing the State Bar—remarked that Duran’s mention of Girardi shows that “all they’re trying to do is deflect” attention from the debacle in not responding to complaints about Girardi.

Kabateck asserted:

“This is a political stunt by the State Bar.”

Geragos on July 27 told the METNEWS:

“The State Bar announcement was provoked by malicious, reckless defamatory reporting by the L.A. Times which is why I’m currently suing the Times and reporters Harriet Ryan and Matt Ryan. Their wild unfounded and demonstrably false allegations were nothing more than an attempt to try to taint Brian and my career achievements for the Armenian community.

“Almost 20 years ago, a respected federal judge and three separate investigations not only proved that there were no questions about either of us and instead lauded our cooperation. The story by the L.A. Times attempted to rewrite history and the two reporters were clueless about class action litigation. Neither Brian or I had any involvement in the claims process and had no ability to approve or reject claims. The truth was that we actually uncovered the wrongdoing, recovered all the money and turned in the culprits.” <

A spokesperson for the Times responded last July 28:

“The State Bar is an independent agency and makes its own decisions about what and whom it investigates. The Los Angeles Times article about the difficulties that Armenian people encountered when trying to access settlement money related to the Armenian genocide reported on matters of substantial public interest, and we encourage people to read the reporting for themselves (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-23/fraud-los-angeles-cheated-armenian-genocide-victims). The Times and its journalists are vigorously defending against Mr. Geragos’ baseless lawsuit; at a hearing on June 22, a Superior Court judge tentatively found that it should be dismissed, and we are awaiting her final ruling on our SLAPP motion.”

In the tentative ruling, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Wendy Chang found that the Times merely quoted allegations by others and did not, itself, accuse Geragos of wrongdoing. She later adopted the tentative decision as the ruling, and Geragos said on Aug. 9:

“This case was always going to end up in the Court of Appeal either way. The ruling is respectfully not only wrong on the facts but also on the law.”

Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney Diana Teran, a key aide to District Attorney George Gascón, has been charged by the Office of Attorney General with 11 counts of unlawfully accessing and, in her prosecutorial role, making use of confidential electronic personnel files on deputy sheriffs. She was arrested and booked on April 27.

The Office of County Counsel has rebuffed a request by the METNEWS pursuant to the Public Records Act (“PRA”) seeking documents reflecting whether Teran continues to receive a salary while off work in light of the criminal charges. It said that personnel matters are exempt from disclosure. Customarily county employees are not paid during such periods and the matter of the amount of public employees’ pay has not been considered confidential.

Yesterday, former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and victim rights attorney Kathleen Cady, a former deputy district attorney, each made a request under the PRA relating to Teran.

Cooley sought:

“1. The current salary and benefits of District Attorney employee Diana Teran;

“2. The ordinance authorizing the position occupied by Diana Teran; and,

“3. Whether District Attorney employee Diana Teran is currently employed and being paid.”

Cady asked for information as to “[a]ll compensation for Diana Teran from January 1, 2024 through the present.”

On April 25, Cady requested other information relating to Teran and the County Counsel’s Office, rather than responding within the 10-day period set forth in the PRA, granted itself an extension—which is authorized under the act where there are “unusual circumstances.” In yesterday’s communication, Cady spelled out (with bold face in the original):

“The requested information is easily accessible and very limited. Government Code section 6253(d) prohibits the use of the ten-day period, or any provisions of the CPRA or any other law, “to delay access for purposes of inspecting public records.” No valid reason exists to delay producing or request an extension to provide this information.”

She added:

“In responding to this request, please keep in mind that Article 1, section 3(b)(2), of the California Constitution expressly requires you to broadly construe all provisions that further the public’s right to access and to apply any limitations on access as narrowly as possible.”

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys on April 26 posted an article on its website by Deputy District Attorney Ryan Erlich in which questions are posed. He said of the Teran matter::

Her case is in its nascent stages. But it is not too early to ask Gascon and his inner circle some key questions, beginning with “what did the District Attorney know and when did he know it?

George Gascon claimed in an office-wide email that he learned about the Attorney General’s filing when many of us did: “late” on Wednesday afternoon. But did Gascon know about the investigation before then? If so, when? Did he know that the AG was investigating Teran when he promoted her to Assistant District Attorney of Ethics & Integrity in December 2023? Did anyone else in the “executive team” know she was under investigation? As an investigative “target,” did Teran retain counsel? Did her attorney-client relationship with that retained counsel affect any case under her supervision?

Before she was charged with 11 felonies, Teran supervised 20 or more special unit….These units handle some of the office’s most politically charged cases. Now that Teran is facing prison time, what steps has or will the District Attorney take to ensure that her alleged wrongdoing did not infect more matters than those referenced in the AG’s complaint? Will there be a top-to-bottom review of her work? Will that review be internal or external? Who will run it?

A recent office memo…suggested that Teran has been moved out of management. Is that a temporary or permanent move? Is Teran still an active employee of the District Attorney’s Office? Did she resign? Was she asked to do so? Was she escorted from the office? Does she still have access to sensitive material or office resources? Is she on administrative leave? Can she still practice law? Is she still drawing some or all the $363,000 in pay and benefits that she earned in 2022? And who is going to pay to “defend” her?

The ADDA said in a board statement on May 15:

“Two weeks ago, after the Attorney General charged Teran with eleven felonies, we called on the District Attorney to address questions about Teran sooner rather than later, and preferably in a live public press conference.

“We’re still waiting, and so is Los Angeles.

“With every passing day, it seems increasingly clear that this administration cares more about advancing and protecting their own narrow political interests than doing the right thing.”

On Nov. 17, 2021, alleged misconduct of an extreme nature on the part of U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California took place. The allegation, a credible one, was revealed by METNEWS on Jan. 26 of last year, commented on in a Feb. 2 editorial, and brought to the attention of Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Murguia. It appears that no action has been taken.

The non-action was spotlighted in an editorial on May 31 of this year which was forwarded to the Ninth Circuit attached to a Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit complaint form. It was returned by Circuit Executive Susan Y. Soong on June 20 with a notation that “[t]he complaint must include the following written acknowledgement: ‘I understand that even if I successfully prove that the judge engaged in misconduct or is disabled, this procedure cannot change the outcome of the underlying case.” The METNEWS was involved in no underlying litigation.

Soong noted that the acknowledgement may be made “in the space provided in Section 6 of the enclosed complaint form.” The form that was enclosed does have a Section 6. The form, as downloaded from the Ninth Circuit’s website earlier in the month, had no Section 6. That is to say, a complaint of misconduct was rejected because a portion wasn’t filled out that didn’t exist when the form was submitted.

The conduct that is being ignored was spelled out, under penalty of perjury, by Westlake Village attorney Marina Lang. She recounted that when she got into a squabble with Wilson over his rulings, she was not merely ordered out of his courtroom but was handcuffed and manacled, forced to hobble in the courthouse hallway before onlookers, booked, and was, for hours, chained to a chair in a cold and smelly basement cell, immobilized, unable even to scratch her nose.

Actions toward her were consequent to an express order by Wilson, though the extent of his knowledge as to the precise treatment of Lang has yet to be established—and inaction to date suggests that it won’t be.

The record does show that after Wilson expressed, with the jury not present, disgruntlement over her conduct in the closing phases of a trial in a trademark dispute, and Lang indicated like displeasure with his behavior, the judge declared:

“You are in contempt,” and asked:

“Is the Marshal there?”

A deputy marshal was present. Wilson then commanded:

“Take Ms. Lang in custody. She’s in contempt of court.”

The order was, understandably, treated by deputies as an adjudication of a criminal contempt. Lang was purportedly told by deputies, when she protested the metal restraints, that they were doing what the judge wanted. Later, back in the courtroom, Wilson related to Lang’s co-counsel, who had continued representing the client, and to opposing counsel, that Lang was in a “holding area” and advised: “I’m going to order her released.”

She was eventually freed that night after court hours, according to her declaration, with her car locked in a parking lot.

The facts and the allegations are not alluded to in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’s memorandum opinion affirming a civil contempt fine of $3,510 later imposed by Wilson on Lang, and would seem to be irrelevant to the issue before that court. Wilson imposed the fine, to be payable to the other side, and the opinion says in Footnote 1:

“Lang acknowledges that she lacks an appellate remedy for her period of temporary confinement and does not appeal it, so we express no views on that issue.”

Although Murguia has taken no action with regard to possible misconduct on the part of Wilson, she did act on information that District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California caused the momentary handcuffing of a 13-year-old girl (as opposed to the alleged hours-long shackling of Lang). The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council on May 1 reprimanded Benitez.