John Charles Eastman
Attorney, Ex-Trump Advisor
Lawyers for former Chapman University School of Law Dean John C. Eastman on Sept. 13 filed a brief in the State Bar’s Review Department contesting a hearing judge’s recommendation that their client, now on involuntary inactive status, be disbarred, asserting a violation of his First Amendment prerogatives and bias on the part of the adjudicator. The May 1 decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland was based on statements Eastman made in the course of representing then-President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, centered on his participation in an effort to block Joseph Biden from taking office as president of the United States through pronouncements at the “Save America Rally” on Jan. 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia. He made claims of election fraud that purportedly deprived the Republican Trump of reelection. The opening brief, signed by Randall A. Miller, Zachary Mayer, and Jeanette Chu of the Los Angeles firm of Miller Law says: “This disciplinary prosecution is an extraordinary, unprecedented, and abjectly misguided foray by the California Bar…into the 2020 presidential election, one of the most hotly debated, disputed, and controversial elections in our nation's history—and in which lawyers on all sides played prominent roles before, during, and after—Dr. Eastman amongst them. Yet, out of that legal conflagration, the Bar selectively plucks Dr. Eastman from the election-litigation scrum to prosecute him for his research, legal advice, role as counsel of record in consequential court cases, and public statements—all on behalf of clients who sought his active and zealous advocacy and legal and constitutional acumen.” It continues: “The stupefying result was the Hearing Department's 128-page Decision, finding- nearly without exception—that Dr. Eastman's actions, in an ocean of national legal controversies, were subjectively without basis, ending his career as a lawyer. And, in its wake, ravaging his First Amendment rights to Speech and to Petition the Government. Every attorney, regardless of side, politics, or personal or legal beliefs, should shudder at the notion that they, too, or any of their brethren, can be the subject of the same convenient, trendy, and selective interrogation—undermining the essential role of zealous and impassioned advocacy they swore to uphold and honor. For those reasons, and more, the Hearing Department's pyre cannot stand.” The brief accuses Roland of having evinced bias, asserting that through her “aggressive questioning,” she “eviscerated Dr. Eastman’s ability to mount an adequate defense.” It charges that there was an “unjustified exclusion of nearly all of Dr. Eastman’s expert witnesses” and a “significant and insupportable curtailment of the testimony of the one expert who remained,” as well as “harassing” of Eastman’s percipient witnesses. It adds: “The Hearing Department seemed quick to jump to Democrats' defense every time any insinuation was made that there might be bad actors or untoward conduct within their ranks. This pattern of favoritism towards Democrats and antagonism toward Republicans created a lopsided adjudication process, which tainted the credibility of the hearing.” Lawyers for Eastman pointed out that Roland “continued to make political donations to Democrat candidates and causes—the political opponents of Dr. Eastman's client, whose representation gave rise to the charges at issue here,” setting forth: “She even made a donation in September 2022, while the investigation of this case had been underway for a year, to the Newsom for California Governor 2022 campaign committee. Those funds were then funneled to Newsom's Super PAC, Campaign for Democracy, in March 2023 while this case was pending before her. The express purpose of that Super PAC is to ‘save the great American experiment in democracy’ from ‘extremist Republicans’ (prominently featuring a picture of former President Trump, Dr. Eastman's client)….” The Office of Chief Trial Counsel’s opening brief blames Eastman, in part, for the storming of the Capitol, declaring: “Speaking in front of a crowd that had been summoned by Trump and his associates to take action to ‘stop the steal,’ Eastman, who was touted to the crowd as a respected constitutional scholar, repeated a scries of false and debunked claims to provide a sham veneer of legality to the action being urged on the crowd—to do what was necessary to persuade Vice President Pence to stop the electoral count. Eastman's false statements followed a call by Rudy Guiliani to ‘have trial by combat’ and preceded Trump's encouragement to the crowd to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and ‘fight like hell’ to save the country. To what could have been no one's surprise, the crowd heeded the call to action and marched to the Capitol. Denied entry, and fueled by the misguided belief, buttressed by Eastman's false claims, that they were acting in furtherance of the law, they stormed the Capitol, gained entry, caused elected representatives to be evacuated, and disrupted the electoral vote count. “Given Eastman and Trump's prior efforts to obstruct the electoral vote count; Eastman's prior knowledge of the possibility of civil unrest during a disputed election; Eastman's prominent speaking role at the rally; the tone, tenor, and false and inflammatory nature of the statements made by Eastman, Guiliani, and Trump to a crowd that had been gathered to ‘Stop the Steal’ and ‘Save America’; and the timing and proximity of the rally to the riot—Eastman's false and deceptive statements at the rally clearly contributed directly to the crowd's actions at the Capitol. As a result, they constituted conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption as charged in count 11, and Eastman should be found culpable on that charge.”
Thomas V. Girardi
Convicted felon, former lawyer (disbarred)
Disbarred lawyer Thomas Vincent Girardi on Aug. 27 was convicted by a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, after a 13-day trial, of four counts of wire fraud. Girardi, 85, faces a possible sentence of 80 years in prison. In light of the prospect of a prison term that would, in reality, amount to a life sentence, prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois, where Girardi has also been indicted, told the judge presiding over proceedings there that following the sentencing here, they might drop charges against him. Girardi is said to have embezzled more than $15 million from clients. He tried, unsuccessfully, to place all blame on Christopher Kamon, who was chief financial officer for the now defunct firm of Girardi|Keese. Kamon will be tried separately in January. Judge Josephine Staton on Jan. 2 found Girardi competent to stand trial, rejecting his contention that he lacks competency owing to affliction with Alzheimer's disease. Once a monied and highly influential lawyer, Girardi is now disgraced and impecunious. A former superstar among California’s personal injury attorneys, Girardi resided in a Pasadena mansion with his trophy wife, “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star Erika Jayne, who, although she filed for a dissolution of marriage, has said she won’t follow through with the divorce because she could wind up having to pay Girardi spousal support. The indictment in Illinois stems from the former lawyer purportedly stealing about $3 million that was due family members of persons who were in the Lion Air Flight 610 crash in Indonesia on Oct. 29, 2018, killing all 189 who were aboard. Boeing had manufactured the aircraft, and agreed to pay $500 million to the survivors. Also indicted there were Los Angeles attorney David Lira, Girardi’s son-in-law, and Kamon. The three face eight counts of wire fraud and four counts of criminal contempt of court. Trial is scheduled for March 3, 2025. Over the decades, complaints by clients to the State Bar of his perfidy, many complaints, went unheeded. Girardi had connections at the State Bar—which included a then-investigator there, Tom Layton, who acted as his boy-Friday..
Brian Kabatech, Mark Gerogos
Attorneys
 
More than two years have 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 Girardi 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.”
Diana Teran
Assistant District Attorney
Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney Diana Teran, a key aide to District Attorney George Gascón, had 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. Following pre-trial motions and a four-day preliminary hearing, six counts remain. Teran was arrested and booked on April 27. She pled not guilty at her arraignment on July 25. The County Counsel’s Office has disclosed, in response to a Public Records Act request by victim rights attorney Kathleen Cady, a former deputy district attorney, that Teran is being paid— $26,970.03 per month, including benefits—while on leave pending resolution of the charges. County Civil Service Rule 16.01 provides that “[l]eaves of absence from regular duties, with pay, may be granted only by the appointing power under such conditions and for such periods as established by the board of supervisors, when such leaves are determined to be in the best interests of the service.” Rule 16.02 says that leaves without pay may be granted for reasons that are enumerated “or for such other lawful purposes as are deemed by the appointing power to be in the best interest of the department.” A former high-level member of the County Counsel’s Office commented: “It should be noted that ‘appointing power’ would mean department head, here Gascon. Although these rules do not expressly address investigations, my recollection is that a leave would be with pay during an investigation but once charges are filed that the leave is without pay (because the employee is frequently dismissed at that point.)”
Other knowledgeable persons say general county policy is to put employees on an unpaid suspension while criminal charges are pending. Teran is being prosecuted by the Office of Attorney General.
Steven Wilson
U.S. District Court Judge
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California has come under investigation in connection with alleged misconduct of an extreme nature on Nov. 17, 2021. The probe was revealed in an order by Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kim Wardlaw signed Aug. 23 and made public Aug. 27.
The incident being probed was revealed by the METNEWS on Jan. 26 of 2023 and commented on in a Feb. 2 editorial. That conduct 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. 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 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.”
|
