More than a year has also passed in a matter in which the State Bar took a publicized action—possibly for the sake of publicity—against 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, it announced it is investigating the two celebrity lawyers. The move could backfire if the two are exonerated for a fourth time.
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.
In a Sept. 27, 2022 press release, the State Bar said the two are being investigated “in connection with the Armenian Genocide insurance settlement funds from which dispersals were made in the U.S. and France.”
Kabateck and Geragos 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 three State Bar probes and one by independent investigators.
The State Bar press release quotes 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 responding to complaints about Girardi.
Kabateck asserted:
“This is a political stunt by the State Bar.”
Lending credence to that assessment is that no proceedings have been instituted against either lawyer.
Geragos on July 27 told the METNEWS:
“The State Bar announcement was provoked by malicious, reckless defamatory reporting by the L.A. Times which is why I’m currently suing the Times and reporters Harriet Ryan and Matt Ryan. Their wild unfounded and demonstrably false allegations were nothing more than an attempt to try to taint Brian and my career achievements for the Armenian community.
“Almost 20 years ago, a respected federal judge and three separate investigations not only proved that there were no questions about either of us and instead lauded our cooperation. The story by the L.A. Times attempted to rewrite history and the two reporters were clueless about class action litigation. Neither Brian or I had any involvement in the claims process and had no ability to approve or reject claims. The truth was that we actually uncovered the wrongdoing, recovered all the money and turned in the culprits.”
A spokesperson for the Times responded on July 28:
“The State Bar is an independent agency and makes its own decisions about what and whom it investigates. The Los Angeles Times article about the difficulties that Armenian people encountered when trying to access settlement money related to the Armenian genocide reported on matters of substantial public interest, and we encourage people to read the reporting for themselves (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-23/fraud-los-angeles-cheated-armenian-genocide-victims). The Times and its journalists are vigorously defending against Mr. Geragos’ baseless lawsuit; at a hearing on June 22, a Superior Court judge tentatively found that it should be dismissed, and we are awaiting her final ruling on our SLAPP motion.”
In that tentative ruling, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Wendy Chang said the Times merely quoted allegations by others and did not, itself, accuse Geragos of wrongdoing. Chang later adopted the tentative decision as the ruling, and Geragos said on Aug. 9:
“This case was always going to end up in the Court of Appeal either way. The ruling is respectfully not only wrong on the facts but also on the law.”
This month marks two years since alleged misconduct of an extreme nature by U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California and eight months since the allegation was revealed by the METNEWS and brought to the attention of Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Murguia.
It is asserted, under oath, by Westlake Village attorney Marina Lang 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 Jan. 24 memorandum opinion affirming a civil contempt fine of $3,510 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.”
She had appealed from the Jan. 26, 2022 civil contempt fine but not from the Nov. 17, 2021 order finding Lang in contempt and ordering that she be taken into custody.
A Feb. 1 METNEWS editorial is titled, “Was a Lawyer Subjected to Barbaric Abuse at a Federal Courthouse?,” with a subtitle, “Allegations of Official Misconduct Must Be Probed.” It urges that Murguia, acting pursuant to 28 U.S. Code §351, look into Lang’s allegations and, if they withstand initial scrutiny, that the matter be referred, in accordance with §352, to the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Council, or that a special committee be appointed to investigate under §353. It also calls for E. Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, and the federal Grand Jury to probe the deputies’ actions.
“Facts must be uncovered, with relevant facts not overlooked or whitewashed,” the editorial asserts, adding:
“A failure on the part of federal authorities to ascertain what occurred on Nov. 17, 2021, would constitute dereliction, and a failure to impose consequences, and severe ones, if Lang was indeed caused the physical pain and dehumanization she describes would be unpardonable.”
It labels Wilson “one slippery hombre” by contending, in his 2022 order finding Lang in civil contempt, that he had not really found her in criminal contempt in 2021 because he had not adhered to the procedures dictated by Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The editorial remarks:
“Oh? A judge has not, in fact, taken an action, though pronounced by the judge, if that action is not authorized by law? Poppycock.”
Although the prospect exists that Lang will be granted a rehearing by the three-judge panel or by the court, sitting en banc—so that the matter of the fine is not dead—the prospect of further proceedings relating to the imposition of a fine would not appear to preclude an investigation into the discrete matter of Wilson’s actions in treating Lang as a criminal..
Although Murguia has taken no action with regard to possible misconduct on the part of Wilson—increasingly if not definitively pointing to dereliction on her part—the Ninth Circuit announced in a Feb. 28 news release that allegations of misconduct on the part of District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California, based on the momentary handcuffing of a 13-year-old girl (as opposed to the alleged hours-long shackling of Lang) are under investigation. Murguia said in an accompanying order that “this order and the fact that I identified a complaint against Judge Benitez are publicly disclosed in order to ‘maintain public confidence in the Judiciary’s ability to redress misconduct or disability.’ ”
The incident concerning Benitez was recounted in a Feb. 23 sentencing memo prepared by attorney Mayra Lopez of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. in connection with a parole violation by a client of hers who had committed drug offenses. At a hearing, the man, Mario Puente, expressed concern that his daughter was keeping bad company which could “lead her into the same path I went down.”
The memo says:
“Several minutes later, Judge Benitez asked a U.S. Marshal, ‘You got cuffs?’ The Marshal confirmed he did. Judge Benitez then ordered the 13-year-old girl to leave the spectator area, approach the front of the courtroom, and stand next to her father’s lawyer. He told the Marshal to ‘(p)ut cuffs on her.’ The Marshal did so, cuffing the girl’s hands behind her back. As he did so, she was crying. Judge Benitez then instructed the Marshal to ‘put(’) her over there in the jury box for me for just a minute.’ The Marshal complied, placing the girl in the jury box in handcuffs. She continued to cry.
“After a long pause, Judge Benitez released the girl. But he did not allow her to immediately return to her seat. Instead he told her, ‘don’t go away. Look at me.’ He asked her how she liked ‘sitting up there’ and ‘the way those cuffs felt on you.’ Still in tears, she responded that she ‘didn’t like it.’ He told her she was ‘an awfully cute young lady’ but that if she didn’t stay away from drugs, she would ‘wind up in cuffs’ and be ‘right back there where I put you a minute ago.’”
