The Commission on Judicial Performance announced Jan. 8 that oral argument will take place before it on March 18 in the matter Court of Appeal Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson of this district’s Div. One.
It will take place starting at 1:30 p.m. at the San Francisco courtroom of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the CJP said.
Three masters on Jan. 3 said, in a 315-page report to the commission, that Johnson, as alleged, engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment of females and other misconduct. It came to its conclusion after hearing more than 100 witnesses, listening to closing argument, and considering proposed findings by each side. Their report says:
“The proven allegations establish Justice Johnson lacked personal boundaries; engaged in unwanted touching of several women; attempted to use the prestige of the judicial office to create personal relationships with women; and engaged in ongoing improper touching and sexually related comments toward his colleague, Court of Appeal Justice Victoria Chaney.
“Justice Johnson’s pattern of conduct toward these women reflects ethical lapses that undermine the public’s trust in the judicial process and erodes the confidence we ask the public to place in our individual judges. These lapses are compounded by Justice Johnson’s failure to take responsibility for many of his actions and to manifest insight into his behavior. We find particularly concerning Justice Johnson’s actions towards women who had recently graduated from law school; were in the early stages of their legal careers; and welcomed the opportunity to establish professional contacts with a Court of Appeal justice. Additionally, the evidence established the most serious misconduct occurred when Justice Johnson was intoxicated, impairing both his judgment and his recollection of events.”
The masters—Court of Appeal Justice Judith L. Haller of the Fourth District’s Div. One, San Diego Superior Court Judge Louis R. Hanoian, and Imperial Superior Court Judge William D. Lehman—found that “most of the intoxication allegations” are “true.” The allegations include after-hours intoxication at the Ronald Reagan State Building where the court is headquartered and at events.
“By manifesting a state of intoxication and using the court facilities to socialize with others, he demeaned the judicial office and was discourteous and disrespectful to court staff working in the building after hours,” the masters said, adding:
“As to his alleged misconduct at two of the private events, we find Justice Johnson attended as a Court of Appeal justice and he engaged in undignified conduct toward others resulting from his intoxication. A judge must expect to be the subject of public scrutiny and abide by restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by private citizens.”
If the commission accepts the findings of prejudicial misconduct, it could remove or censure Johnson, subject to discretionary review by the California Supreme Court, or could take lesser action.
No appellate court jurist since the commission came into existence in 1961 has faced the prospect of an ouster for misconduct. California Supreme Court Marshall F. McComb, after a 50-year judicial career, was removed in 1977 by a makeshift Supreme Court panel—comprised of Court of Appeal justices, sitting pro tem—but not stemming from misconduct; the aged jurist displayed signs of senility.
The commission members who will act on the report include two judges—Court of Appeal Justice William S. Dato of the Fourth District’s Div. One and Trinity Superior Court Judge Michael B. Harper—one lawyer, former State Bar President Anthony P. Capozzi of Fresno, and five lay members. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Lench and a lay member recused themselves.
Michael J. Avenatti
Attorney
A hearing was scheduled to take place on Jan. 14 before the State Bar Court on the matter of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel’s application to place Los Angeles attorney Michael J. Avenatti on involuntary inactive status. Avenatti—who is facing a spate of felony charges in federal court here and in New York—showed up for the 10 a.m. hearing, but it wasn’t held. The lawyer was arrested by agents of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division pursuant to a warrant that was obtained, on an ex parte basis, from a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
It was alleged that Avenatti has violated conditions of his pretrial release.
Avenatti was arrested March 25 in New York City—the same day charges were filed here—and was released that night on a $300,000 bond. He is currently being held in New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Center.
The State Bar on June 3 filed a petition with the State Bar Court to place the celebrity lawyer on involuntary inactive status. Disciplinary charges were filed July 29.
However, disciplinary proceedings were abated on Sept. 17 in light of pending criminal charges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Trial is slated to begin in that action on May 19.
For Avenatti to be placed on inactive State Bar status, Supervising Hearing Judge Yvette D. Roland would have to make a finding, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §6007, that the lawyer “has caused or is causing substantial harm to the attorney’s clients or the public” and that there is a “reasonable probability” that pending disciplinary proceedings against him will result in his disbarment.
It is contended by the Office of Trial Counsel that Avenatti “intentionally and dishonestly misappropriated nearly $840,000” of client Gregory Barela’s settlement funds, of which $710,000 is still owed.
Avenatti’s response says:
“Importantly, none of the allegations made by Gregory Barela, the complainant in the State Bar’s disciplinary proceeding, or the allegations in the pending criminal proceedings, has been proven to be true.”
He asserts that Barela received his agreed-upon share of the $1.9 million settlement in an intellectual property matter, and remarks:
“The evidence will show that Mr. Barela’s credibility is severely lacking, and that he has a lengthy negative history of fabrication of false ‘facts.’ ”
The State Bar’s complaint notes that “there are criminal matters pending against respondent in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Central District of California involving bribery and embezzlement of client funds.”
The prosecution in the Central District of California involves the alleged embezzlement of funds belonging to four clients, including Barela.
One criminal action against him in New York is based on Avenatti’s purported attempt to extort more than $20 million from Nike. He is also being prosecuted for allegedly cheating clients, including pocketing $300,000 in an advance to porn star Stormy Daniels in connection with her book, “Full Disclosure.”
Avenatti, who has handled a number of high-profile cases, represented Daniels—whose actual name is Stephanie Clifford—in her actions against President Donald Trump 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.
Senior United States District Judge Deborah A. Batts of the Southern District of New York on Sept. 17 denied Avenatti’s motion for a transfer of the case involving Daniels to the Central District of California. She said:
“This case is a straightforward fraud case involving one victim, concerns a narrow course of conduct that lasted for approximately eight months, and was brought as a two-count Indictment,” adding:
“On the other hand, the California Prosecution involves five victims, concerns a wide array of alleged criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, tax, bank fraud, obstruction, and false statements offenses that lasted over a five year period, and was brought as a 36-count Indictment.”
One continuance has followed another. Philip James Layfield’s trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on charges of mail fraud and money laundering, initially set for May 15, 2018, is now set for June 16.
Layfield has been released on bail and is presently residing in Delaware.
The prosecution began in connection with Layfield pocketing settlement funds belonging to Josephine Nguyen, who was a client of the erstwhile law firm 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.
The defendant, apprehended in New Jersey in March, 2018, and incarcerated until August of that year, had previously fled to Costa Rica.
Attorney Anthony M. Solis, on Aug. 17, 2018, filed an emergency motion for an order modifying the terms of Layfield’s release to permit him to leave his residence to attend classes, paving the way for him to obtain a commercial driver’s license so he could seek employment as a truck driver. The motion was granted and he completed a seven-week course. On Oct. 16, District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the Central District of California granted a motion permitting him to accept employment with a trucking company.
Layfield was suspended from law practice by the State Bar of California after he failed to show up for his Jan. 24, 2018 disciplinary hearing. 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. He was disbarred Oct. 27, 2018.
Layfield acknowledges moving funds from the attorney-client trust account to his erstwhile firm’s general fund, but insists he thought there was enough money in the coffers to cover the clients’ shares of settlements. He ascribes blame to others, including the State Bar prosecutor.
