The California Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to grant review in the case of Court of Appeal Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson of this district’s Div. One, who is contesting a June 2 determination by the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) that he should be ousted from office based on a pattern of sexual harassment.
His petition for review was filed Aug. 28; the CJP filed an answer on Oct. 13, and Johnson filed a reply on Nov. 2.
Johnson’s lawyers contend that the public should not be deprived of the services of a brilliant jurist based on conduct not implicating his judicial performance and suggest racism is underlying the effort to remove him from office, while the commission argues that his misconduct was too egregious for any resolution to be fitting other than ejectment.
The commission, in its 111-page decision and order, not only found repeated victimizing of women—including Court of Appeal Justice Victoria Chaney, a member of the same division as Johnson—in the form of inappropriate advances, comments, and touching, but also dishonesty on his part in lying during the course of the CJP proceedings.
“Rather than take responsibility for his offensive behavior, he maligned the victims, including his colleague Justice Chaney, and accused them of testifying falsely,” the CJP declared. “But it is Justice Johnson whom the masters found, and we find, testified untruthfully in many instances.”
In summing up, it said:
“Judges are expected to be honest, have integrity, uphold high personal standards, and treat everyone with dignity and respect, on or off the bench. Justice Johnson’s conduct before, and during, this proceeding demonstrates that he does not meet these fundamental expectations. He committed 18 acts of prejudicial misconduct and was found to have engaged in the unwanted touching of four women, to have engaged in conduct that would reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment of seven women at his court, to have misused the prestige of his position and demeaned his judicial office by attempting to develop personal relationships with three other young women, and to have further demeaned his office by his offensive conduct toward a fourth woman, as well as by multiple incidents of undignified conduct while intoxicated.
“Justice Johnson’s refusal to admit to serious misconduct, and his intoxication, coupled with his failure to be truthful during the proceedings, compels us to conclude that he cannot meet the fundamental expectations of his position as a judge. Fulfilling the commission’s mandate—particularly with respect to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary—can only be achieved by removing him from the bench.”
The commission has 11 members—six public members, three judges, and two lawyers. Two members—Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa B. Lench and one public member—recused themselves.
The decision by the nine remaining members was unanimous.
Johnson was appointed to his post in 2009 by then-Gov. Arnold Swarzenegger, on the recommendation of Div. One’s outgoing presiding justice, Vaino Spencer (since deceased). At the time, Johnson was a U.S. magistrate judge for the Central District of California, a position for which he was hired in 1999.
He received his law degree from Yale in 1985, was in private practice from 1985-89, and was an assistant United States attorney for the Central District of California from 1989-99.
Since the commission came into existence in 1961, only once did it call for the removal of a justice of an appellate court. On May 2, 1977, it ordered the involuntary retirement of California Supreme Court Justice Marshall F. McComb, after a 50-year judicial career—not based on misconduct, but due to the 82-year-old jurist having become senile.
Michael J. Avenatti
Attorney/Convict
U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe of the Southern District of New York on Nov. 16 postponed sentencing of the one-time prominent and monied Los Angeles attorney Michael J. Avenatti from Dec. 9 to Feb. 17, in light of the continuing pandemic. Avenatti is in home confinement in the Venice area of the City of Los Angeles, in the residence of a friend, Jay Manheimer.
He was convicted Feb. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on attempted extortion and wire fraud counts.
The release from confinement in New York, on a $1 million bond, was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California, who noted that he was not backtracking from his finding “that there is probable cause to believe that defendant committed state and federal crimes while on pretrial release” previously and “is a danger to the community.”
In light of the adjudication in federal court that Avenatti attempted to pry nearly $25 million from Nike by threatening to expose misconduct by the sportswear giant in the recruitment of college basketball players if it did not pay—and the prospect of a sentence of 40 years or more in prison—State Bar proceedings against him are relegated to little significance. It now looms as a virtual certainty that he will ultimately be disbarred in California.
State Bar disciplinary charges were filed July 29, 2019, but proceedings were abated on Sept. 17 of last year in light of pending criminal charges in Selna’s court based on allegedly cheating clients and committing bankruptcy fraud.
U.S. District Court Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York has found that Avenatti, a one-time presidential candidate, is presently indigent. Furman is presiding over the prosecution of him for allegedly cheating former client Stormy Daniels, out of $300,000.
In July, he appointed Avenatti’s retained counsel, Dean Steward, to serve as court-appointed lawyer in the case.
The $300,000 was an advance to Daniels, a porn star, in connection with her book, “Full Disclosure.” Avenatti allegedly forged her signature on a letter to her literary agent, directing that payments be sent to a bank account he controlled.
Avenatti has handled a number of high-profile cases, including representation of Daniels—whose actual name is Stephanie Clifford—in her actions against President Donald Trump in an effort to skirt a 2016 nondisclosure agreement she signed in connection with a $130,000 pay-off for agreeing not to talk publicly of their affair in 2006. He also handled her action against the president for defamation.
Disbarred lawyer Philip James Layfield is facing a federal prosecution on multiple counts in connection with allegedly stealing his client’s funds and cheating on his taxes.
Pursuant to a seventh stipulation for a continuance, trial is now scheduled for June 1. As federal investigators closed in on him on 2017, Layfield fled to Costa Rica in June of that year, was in the United States for two days in October 2017, returned to Costa Rica, and came back to the U.S. on Feb. 19, 2018. He was arrested in New Jersey one week later and was indicted here on March 9, 2018.
The prosecution began in connection with Layfield having pocketed settlement funds belonging to Josephine Nguyen, who was a client of Layfield & Barrett. She was to receive 60 percent of a $3.9 million settlement of her personal injury claim, amounting to $2.3 million.
A superseding indictment expanded the scope of the prosecution to include tax evasion and fraud for 2016 and 2017. As Layfield’s lawyer, Anthony M. Solis, summed up the charges, in a memorandum of points and authorities filed in July, the superseding indictment “alleges a broad scheme perpetrated by defendant Philip Layfield to, essentially, fleece his clients of their settlement funds, cheat attorneys out of their agreed-upon referral fees and fail to honor various tax obligations owed to the United States.”
Some of the counts have been dismissed.
The defendant was released on a $100,000 bond and is presently residing in Las Vegas.
Layfield has filed an appeal in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals from an order in his former firm’s bankruptcy proceeding in which the trustee is seeking to recover more than $10 million from Layfield.
The appeal follows a July 14 order by District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California denying Layfield’s motion for reconsideration of his previous order dismissing an interlocutory appeal from a Bankruptcy Court’s ruling denying of Layfield’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trustee in bankruptcy has taken charge of the assets of Layfield & Barrett, APC, an erstwhile firm in the Los Angeles Financial District.
The State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel filed disciplinary charges against him on Sept. 20, 2017, alleging that the attorney misappropriated more than $3.4 million from his clients. Layfield was suspended from law practice by the State Bar after he failed to show up for his Jan. 24, 2018 disciplinary hearing, and he was disbarred Oct. 27, 2018.
Layfield was reciprocally disbarred in the District of Columbia last Aug. 27 based on his disbarment here.
