Former Los Angeles County Bar Association President Paul Robert Kiesel, whose name has come up repeatedly in connection with the Department of Water and Power (“DWP”) overbilling scandal, on Feb. 25 was charged by the State Bar with having “intentionally committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.” He is alleged to have participated in setting up a sham case against the City of Los Angeles which the defendant controlled. The ploy is said to have been aimed at minimizing the city’s damages.
Kiesel was an attorney for Antwon Jones, lead plaintiff in an action against the city in connection with massive overbillings of ratepayers. He also represented the city, as special counsel, in a lawsuit against PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP which the city blamed for providing a shoddy billing system, leading to the erroneous billings.
The city hired Kiesel along with then-New York attorney Paul Paradis, now disbarred in connection with the matter.
The State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel (“OCTC”) alleges:
“Between in or about January 2015 and…March 2019, while serving as special counsel to the City…regarding the LADWP ratepayer billing issues arising from the [billing] system,…respondent colluded with multiple individuals, including attorneys…represent[ing] the plaintiffs in the matter, and the City of Los Angeles to structure, position, and settle Jones v. City in a manner that served the interests of the City…, while concealing…and failing to disclose this collusion to the court overseeing and approving the settlement….”
It asserts that Kiesel made “false and misleading statements” during a deposition conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Kiesel on March 12 filed a motion seeking the disqualification of State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland because she had found disciplinable misconduct on the part of two other figures in the scandal: Michael Jacob Libman and James Patrick Clark. Roland had determined that Libman should be disbarred and Clark should be suspended from practice for two years.
The motion was referred to State Bar Court Judge Manjari Chawla who, on March 30, denied it, saying:
“Judge Roland's prior rulings were based upon her actual observance of the witnesses and evidence during the independent trials in the two disciplinary actions and related directly to the issues before her. i.e.. Libman's and Clark's respective culpability for the alleged misconduct and the recommended discipline to be imposed. The fact that some of those findings—based on the evidence presented—related to Kiesel's alleged role in the underlying litigation does not support a rational inference of bias or partiality. Nor does it indicate that Judge Roland has predetermined the merits of Kiesel's culpability for the wrongdoing alleged in this proceeding.”
On April 9, Kiesel filed a petition for interlocutory review by the Review Department of Chawla's order, asserting that it “is predicated on multiple errors of law that, if left uncorrected, will deprive Mr. Kiesel of his fundamental right to a fair trial before an impartial adjudicator.”
Represented by veteran trial lawyer Raymond P. Boucher and others, Kiesel pointed out that in the Liebman matter, “Judge Roland found that Mr. Libman secretly colluded with others, including Mr. Kiesel, to sue his own client, the City of Los Angeles, and settle on terms favorable to the City,” adding:
“Judge Roland found that Mr. Kiesel had ‘conflicting loyalties to the City,’ his client—a direct adverse determination about his character and professional integrity….She also found that Mr. Kiesel ‘selected Libman as local counsel for Jones’ and then linked that suggestion to Mr. Kiesel's involvement with Mr. Libman in [a] separate… matter, implicitly finding a quid pro quo arrangement.”
The petition continues:
“In Matter of Clark, Judge Roland found James Clark—who worked for the City Attorney's Office at the time—participated in the secret collusion to engineer the Jones class action and settlement, along with Mr. Kiesel and attorneys Paul Paradis, Tom Peters, Jack Landskroner, and Mr. Libman.… Mr. Kiesel is referenced throughout the decision—not as a peripheral figure, but as a central actor….Judge Roland portrayed Mr. Kiesel as a willing and active participant in virtually every stage of what she considered to be a corrupt scheme involving moral turpitude, quid pro quo, and concealment from the trial court.”
Kiesel’s petition adds:
“Mr. Kiesel is entitled to a full and fair consideration of facts and law demonstrating his innocence. He believes Judge Roland's findings are flatly wrong as they relate to him and show Judge Roland has prejudged the core issues OCTC has alleged against him.”
The petition also sets forth that “Chawla applied a subjective standard—crediting Judge Roland's personal assurances of impartiality—rather than the objective standard required by the Due Process Clause and Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).”
The OCTC, represented by Trial Counsel Peter A. Klivans, on May 4 filed a response. Denying that Roland’s statements in the matters involving Liebman and Clark are germane, Klivans wrote:
“[R]respondent was not a party to a proceeding before Judge Roland prior to the instant matter and Judge Roland's decisions reflected findings relevant to matters before her based on the records established in those matters. Judge Roland's Decisions in the Libman and Clark matters were opinions with respect to the parties in those matters, not with respect to respondent, and they were issued based on the records developed in those matters. That respondent was a witness in those matters and gave testimony does not convert Judge Roland's opinions in those matters into a demonstration of bias or prejudice against respondent.”
Challenging the assertion that Chawla relied on Roland’s subjective views, the trial counsel said:
“Here, Judge Chawla analyzed each of respondent's arguments and rejected them based on the factual record and case law….This reflected the court’s application of the correct objective standard.”
Kiesel was granted leave to file a reply brief and did so on Wednesday. It includes these points:
“…OCTC's principal argument that Mr. Kiesel was ‘not a party’ to the prior proceedings in which Judge Roland made adverse factual and credibility determinations supports reversal, not affirmance. Mr. Kiesel was deprived of the procedural protections that ordinarily justify asking a judge to set aside prior impressions.”
“…OCTC does not deny that Judge Chawla credited Judge Roland’s own subjective assurance of impartiality. While OCTC argues in a single sentence that Judge Chawla rejected Mr. Kiesel’s arguments ‘based on the factual record and case law,’ Judge Chawla's order shows this analysis was done through Judge Roland's lens, not those of an objective person.”
On Nov. 7, 2023, Paradis was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. of the Central District of California to 33 months in prison for his participation in the scheme. Paradis has accused Mike Feuer of lying about his lack of involvement in what took place while he was Los Angeles city attorney from 2013-22.
Feuer has been mentioned prominently as a possible knowing participant in the skullduggery, but is not the subject of disciplinary proceedings, at present. He is currently a senior policy advisor for Inner City Law Center which advocates for tenants and the homeless.
The opening brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal by Thomas V. Girardi of his August 2024 conviction on four counts of wire fraud was due Dec. 26 but on Dec. 19, his lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Andrew B. Talai, filed a motion for a 90-day extension of time, “to and including March 26, 2026” which, it was noted the government did not oppose. On March 19, a further request for an extension was filed; it was ordered:
“The opening brief is due June 24, 2026. The answering brief is due July 24, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served.”
Girardi, 86, is incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. U.S. District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California on Sept. 19 denied a motion by Girardi for release on bond pending appeal.
The charges stemmed from failing to pay clients the full amounts of settlement proceeds, perpetrating his crimes, according to the indictment, “by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and the concealment of material facts” which he “had a duty to disclose.”
On June 3, Staton sentenced Girardi—once wealthy, now impecunious—to seven years and three months in prison. The sentencing occurred on Girardi’s 86th birthday.
Staton ordered that Girardi make restitution in the amount of $2,310,247.26.
The anticipated release date is Aug. 1, 2031. However, it is rumored that Girardi, whose term began on July 17, 2025, is seeking compassionate release.
His estranged wife, Erika Jayne, noted in a recent episode of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills that Girardi is bound to die in prison, commenting: “I just kind of hoped he’d die before he’d go to prison, just so he could get it over with.”
