Former Chapman University School of Law Dean John Charles Eastman yesterday filed with the California Supreme Court a petition for review of the State Bar Court’s June 13 recommendation—echoed on June 13 by the Review Department—that he be disbarred over his role in challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election on behalf of his then-client, President Donald Trump.
The State Bar on Sept. 8 filed its own petition for review. It is contesting the determination by State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland that Eastman’s remarks at the “Save America Rally” in the District of Columbia on Jan. 6, 2021, were not geared to incite the storming of the Capitol on that date. Eastman answered the petition on Sept. 19 and the State Bar has been given an extension until Oct. 10 for filing a reply.
The Review Department concluded that Eastman’s words “establish that he made false and misleading statements, but in no way does he tell the crowd ‘to assault and breach the Capitol’ ” as alleged in the notice of charges.
He was accused of 11 counts of misconduct. It was only Count 11—incitement of a riot—that Roland found unsupported. She determined that he lied to then-Vice President Michael Pence amd to the public as to the vice president’s power to delay certification of the presidential election results.
The State Bar has ordered Eastman to pay $55,608.27 in costs.
U.S. District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California on Sept. 19 denied a motion by Thomas Vincent Girardi for release on bond pending appeal of his August 2024 conviction on four counts of wire fraud.
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.”
Staton said with respect to three of the four bases for relief set forth in Girardi’s motion, the defendant has “failed to establish that if the identified issue were to be resolved in his favor, that resolution would be likely to result” in a reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence not entailing imprisonment, or a sentence to time served.
As to Girardi’s insistence that Staton erred in finding him mentally fit to be tried the judge acknowledged:
“The requirement that a criminal defendant meet the standard for mental competency to stand trial is so fundamental that, should Defendant prevail on this issue, the appellate court would likely reverse his conviction to protect Defendant's right to Due Process.”
However, she declared:
“To raise a substantial question of law or fact in this context, defense counsel would be required to establish that it is ‘fairly debatable’ that the Court clearly erred or abused its discretion as to its finding that Defendant was mentally competent. Here, defense counsel fails to show that it is ‘fairly debatable’ whether the Court rulings were illogical, implausible, unreasonable, or lacking in evidentiary support. As such, no substantial issue of law or fact has been raised.”
On June 3, Staton sentenced Girardi—once wealthy, now impecunious and represented in criminal proceedings by the Office of Federal Public Defender—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.
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" cast member 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.
She has disclaimed knowledge of his schemes, let alone complicity in them.
A federal indictment of Girardi in the Northern District of Illinois stemmed from the then-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. Judge Mary Rowland, who sits in Chicago, on May 14 dismissed the charges, at the request of prosecutors, owing to the then-upcoming sentencing of Girardi in Los Angeles.
Saturday marked three years 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."
Under fire for its dereliction in failing to act on complaints about Tom Girardi until his dishonesty became manifest and widely reported by the news media, that 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 of last year, 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 obtained a $37.5 million settlement in separate actions against two insurers that failed to pay claims under life insurance policies issued to persons who were slain in the Armenian genocide. Prompted by Los Angeles Times articles suggesting that the lawyers mishandled funds, the State Bar is focusing on what happened to proceeds from a $17.5 million settlement with a French insurer in 2005.
While moneys are missing, the lawyers point out they had nothing to do with the distribution of the proceeds.
Geragos—who has said he will be suing the State Bar—remarked that the State Bar’s mention of Tom Girardi in its news release shows that “all they’re trying to do is deflect” attention from the debacle in failing to take action in response to decades of complaints about Girardi.
Kabateck asserted:
“This is a political stunt by the State Bar.”
‘X’ and ‘Y’
Unidentified Court of Appeal Justices
The Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) on March 26—in its annual report summarizing actions in the previous year—divulged a failure on the part of two appellate justices to carry out duties faithfully—but did not identify the slackers.
Justice ‘X’
The disciplinary body said it privately admonished “[a]n appellate justice” who “delayed decision in several matters by issuing opinions more than three years after each case was fully briefed and assigned to the justice,” noting:
“In one matter, the delay resulted in actual prejudice to a party who was incarcerated unnecessarily.”
Justice ‘Y’
The CJP reported sending an advisory letter (the lowest form of discipline) to another justice, saying:
“An appellate justice delayed decision in numerous matters by issuing opinions more than three years after each case was fully briefed and assigned to the justice. The delay in some of those appeals exceeded four years.”
An inquiry was emailed to Third District Court of Appeal Justice Harry E. Hull who has been publicly identified by appellate attorney Jon B. Eisenberg of Sonoma County as being delinquent, along with others in the Sacramento-based court, in resolving appeals.
The presiding justice of that district, Vance W. Raye, wound up resigning from office, with a public admonishment and a lifetime bar on holding judicial office; then-Justices William J. Murray and Coleman Blease had retired earlier that year.
A response came from San Francisco attorney James A. Murphy—who has represented several judges before the CJP—saying that it is “false!” that Hull had been socked with a private admonishment.
However, he did not respond to a further inquiry as to whether Hull received an advisory letter.
In light of secrecy in connection with CJP proceedings, there is no clue as to why Justice Y was favored with leniency..
