John Eastman
Attorney, Ex-Trump Advisor
Former Chapman University School of Law Dean John C. Eastman on May 31 filed a request for review by the State Bar’s Review Department of the March 27 recommendation by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland that he be disbarred.
On May 1, Roland denied Eastman’s request that he be allowed to practice law while his appeal is pending. She explained:
“The court’s conclusion that Eastman failed to show that he poses no significant threat to the public precludes the imposition of interim remedies.”
Roland recommended disbarment based on statements Eastman made in the course of representing then-President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.
The disciplinary case against him raised the question as to whether a California lawyer can be disbarred based on having put forth an unsupported legal theory, prompting action by others in reliance on his counseling. Allegations against Eastman are 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, of election fraud that purportedly deprived Trump of reelection.
Rejecting Eastman’s First Amendment defense, Roland said:
“Attorneys have a First Amendment right to make statements in public in the course of their professional duties. However, this right does not extend to making knowing or reckless false statements of fact or law. Here…, Eastman made multiple false and misleading statements in his professional capacity as attorney for President Trump in court filings and other written statements, as well as in conversations with others and in public remarks….Eastman knowingly made these false statements or had no reasonable factual or legal basis for making them. Hence, Eastman’s First Amendment defense fails.”
Thomas V. Girardi
Criminal defendant, former lawyer (disbarred)
Disbarred lawyer Thomas Vincent Girardi is facing an Aug. 6 trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on five counts of wire fraud. On July 17, District Court Judge Josephine Staton granted a defense motion to sever Girardi’s trial from that of co-defendant Christopher Kamon, who was chief accountant for the now-defunct law firm of Girardi|Keese. She explained: “Here, the Government has characterized the evidence as establishing that Defendant Girardi carried out the main fraudulent scheme and that he was aided and abetted by Defendant Kamon in the latter's role as an accountant. Generally, this fact lends itself to a joint trial, as evidence of the existence of a scheme to defraud and the manner and means through which it was allegedly carried out is likely to be the same as to both Defendants. But the potential for prejudice arises out of the anticipated defenses, which pits Defendant Girardi against Defendant Kamon such that each will tend to act as a ‘second prosecutor’ of the other….This will result in each defendant having to defend against two different, conflicting theories as to why he is guilty of the charged offenses. Although such situations do not always compel the conclusion that the defendants should be tried separately, the Court determines in this instance that it does.” She acknowledged the alternative of each defendant being tried by a separate jury, but said: “The Court concludes that although in theory this may be a viable option, any efficiencies gained by such a joint trial would likely be offset by administrative difficulties and could easily result in a multitude of additional evidentiary complexities.” Also on July 17, Staton denied Girardi’s motion for a delay in going to trial, saying: “[N]either the ex parte application nor the reply read like documents drafted within the last few days to respond to unforeseeable circumstances. The Court has some concern that this request for another continuance was long in the making. Further, the Defendant's reply reflects a misunderstanding of what needs to be shown for a continuance at this stage, arguing that ‘the government makes no effort to explain why any compelling interest requires the denial of a two-month continuance.’….Rather, less than three weeks before trial and after jury summonses after been issued and a large time-qualified panel identified, the question before the Court is whether there is good cause for a continuance…..[T]he Court concludes there is not.” Girardi is accused of having embezzled more than $15 million from clients. The government on Monday made an unopposed motion to drop Count Five of the indictment which entails a relatively small amount and largely relates to Kamon . It concerns a July 9, 2020 wire transfer “of approximately $15,000 from a Girardi Keese operating account in Los Angeles…as payment for charges incurred on the Girardi Keese Corporate American Express Card issued to defendant KAMON, the source of which funds was, in part, the settlement proceeds belonging to Client 2.” 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 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. Girardi also faces felony charges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The indictment in Illinois stems from the former lawyer purportedly purloining 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.
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.
Max Huntsman
Los Angeles County Inspecter General
It has been nearly two years since state Attorney General Rob Bonta announced in a Sept. 20, 2022 press release that the Department of Justice would look into “whether any individuals committed a crime by allegedly giving advance warning” to then-Supervisor Sheila Kuehl and another who were subjects of a search warrant. The person who allegedly provided the tip-off is Max Huntsman, the county’s “inspector general,” hired to unveil official misconduct though, as some see it, has engaged in misconduct, himself. Bonta’s office has failed to respond to a May 29 METNEWS inquiry as to the status of the investigation. There have been no public progress reports. It appears the matter is destined to linger and die. That’s what happened in connection with Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office chief of staff, Joseph Iniguez. He was arrested on Dec. 11, 2021, and booked on suspicion of public intoxication; the Office of Attorney General took the case because the District Attorney's Office had a conflict; it took no action and, after one year, the time for filing charges expired. Kuehl’s home was searched based on a suspicion that she had assisted a non-profit organization, run by a friend of hers, in obtaining a no-bid county contract contrary to the county’s interests. Appearances are that Huntsman, a former deputy district attorney, interfered with a law enforcement investigation into possible political corruption by causing Kuehl, indirectly, to be alerted to an impending exploration of her home by sheriff’s deputies, affording her an opportunity to hide or destroy potentially incriminating evidence. Huntsman is mum.
Huntsman has also come under criticism for causing the downloading of confidential personnel records of the Sherriff’s Department, which also appears to be a dead issue—at least as to him, but not Deputy District Attorney Diana Teran who is facing a prosecution on 11 counts.
Brian Kabatech, Mark Gerogos
Attorneys
 
Nearly two years has also 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 Thomas V. Girardi (now disbarred) 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, has 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. She was arrested and booked on April 27. The Office of County Counsel has rebuffed a request by the METNEWS pursuant to the Public Records Act (“PRA”) seeking documents reflecting whether Teran continues to receive a salary while off work in light of the criminal charges. It said that personnel matters are exempt from disclosure. Customarily county employees are not paid during such periods and the matter of the amount of public employees’ pay has not been considered confidential. Yesterday, former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and victim rights attorney Kathleen Cady, a former deputy district attorney, each made a request under the PRA relating to Teran. Cooley sought: “1. The current salary and benefits of District Attorney employee Diana Teran; “2. The ordinance authorizing the position occupied by Diana Teran; and, “3. Whether District Attorney employee Diana Teran is currently employed and being paid.” Cady asked for information as to “[a]ll compensation for Diana Teran from January 1, 2024 through the present.” On April 25, Cady requested other information relating to Teran and the County Counsel’s Office, rather than responding within the 10-day period set forth in the PRA, granted itself an extension—which is authorized under the act where there are “unusual circumstances.” In yesterday’s communication, Cady spelled out (with bold face in the original):
“The requested information is easily accessible and very limited. Government Code section 6253(d) prohibits the use of the ten-day period, or any provisions of the CPRA or any other law, “to delay access for purposes of inspecting public records.” No valid reason exists to delay producing or request an extension to provide this information.”
She added: “In responding to this request, please keep in mind that Article 1, section 3(b)(2), of the California Constitution expressly requires you to broadly construe all provisions that further the public’s right to access and to apply any limitations on access as narrowly as possible.” The Association of Deputy District Attorneys on April 26 posted an article on its website by Deputy District Attorney Ryan Erlich in which questions are posed. He said of the Teran matter::
Her case is in its nascent stages. But it is not too early to ask Gascon and his inner circle some key questions, beginning with “what did the District Attorney know and when did he know it?
George Gascon claimed in an office-wide email that he learned about the Attorney General’s filing when many of us did: “late” on Wednesday afternoon. But did Gascon know about the investigation before then? If so, when? Did he know that the AG was investigating Teran when he promoted her to Assistant District Attorney of Ethics & Integrity in December 2023? Did anyone else in the “executive team” know she was under investigation? As an investigative “target,” did Teran retain counsel? Did her attorney-client relationship with that retained counsel affect any case under her supervision?
Before she was charged with 11 felonies, Teran supervised 20 or more special unit….These units handle some of the office’s most politically charged cases. Now that Teran is facing prison time, what steps has or will the District Attorney take to ensure that her alleged wrongdoing did not infect more matters than those referenced in the AG’s complaint? Will there be a top-to-bottom review of her work? Will that review be internal or external? Who will run it?
A recent office memo…suggested that Teran has been moved out of management. Is that a temporary or permanent move? Is Teran still an active employee of the District Attorney’s Office? Did she resign? Was she asked to do so? Was she escorted from the office? Does she still have access to sensitive material or office resources? Is she on administrative leave? Can she still practice law? Is she still drawing some or all the $363,000 in pay and benefits that she earned in 2022? And who is going to pay to “defend” her? The ADDA said in a board statement on May 15: “Two weeks ago, after the Attorney General charged Teran with eleven felonies, we called on the District Attorney to address questions about Teran sooner rather than later, and preferably in a live public press conference. “We’re still waiting, and so is Los Angeles. “With every passing day, it seems increasingly clear that this administration cares more about advancing and protecting their own narrow political interests than doing the right thing.”
Steven Wilson
U.S. District Court Judge
Mary Murguia
Ninth Circuit Chief Judge
On Nov. 17, 2021, alleged misconduct of an extreme nature on the part of U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California took place. The allegation, a credible one, was revealed by METNEWS on Jan. 26 of last year, commented on in a Feb. 2 editorial, and brought to the attention of Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Murguia. It appears that no action has been taken. The non-action was spotlighted in an editorial on May 31 of this year which was forwarded to the Ninth Circuit attached to a Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit complaint form. It was returned by Circuit Executive Susan Y. Soong on June 20 with a notation that “[t]he complaint must include the following written acknowledgement: ‘I understand that even if I successfully prove that the judge engaged in misconduct or is disabled, this procedure cannot change the outcome of the underlying case.” The METNEWS was involved in no underlying litigation. Soong noted that the acknowledgement may be made “in the space provided in Section 6 of the enclosed complaint form.” The form that was enclosed does have a Section 6. The form, as downloaded from the Ninth Circuit’s website earlier in the month, had no Section 6. That is to say, a complaint of misconduct was rejected because a portion wasn’t filled out that didn’t exist when the form was submitted. The conduct that is being ignored 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—and inaction to date suggests that it won’t be. 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, understandably, 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.” Although Murguia has taken no action with regard to possible misconduct on the part of Wilson, she did act on information that District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California caused the momentary handcuffing of a 13-year-old girl (as opposed to the alleged hours-long shackling of Lang). The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council on May 1 reprimanded Benitez.
|
