October
2022

A report on where
things
stand



Government Seeks 17½-Year Prison Term for Avenatti in Wire Fraud/Tax Evasion Case… Weingart, Viramontes Nominated to Court of Appeal Posts, Confirmation Hearings Set… Lofton, Roxas, Ostiller Draw Appointments to Los Angeles Superior Court



Judges, Lawyers Under Scrutiny


Michael J. Avenatti
Attorney/Convict

Michael J. Avenatti

Suspended California lawyer Michael John Avenatti, who at one time eyed a presidential bid, is now a prison inmate following his convictions in federal courts. Here are events this year, in descending order:

Oct. 25: Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brett A. Sagel and Ranee A. Katzenstein of the Central District of California filed a 52-page position paper in the U.S. District Court asking that Avenatti be sentenced next Monday to 17 years and six months in prison—if he owns up to his misdeeds—on four counts of wire fraud and one count of obstructing the due administration of the internal revenue laws. The latter charge relates to an effort to cheat the government out of about $5 million. The government reckons the total loss to victims to be $12,350,000.

It asks that the time be served consecutively to other sentences and, though Avenatti now claims to be penniless, that restitution be ordered in the amount of $10,838,908—$7,631,764 to defrauded clients and $3,207,144 based on money owed the Internal Revenue Service.

Avenatti on June 16 pled guilty. The Department of Justice announced after the plea that it would not pursue 31 remaining counts of wire-, bank-, and tax-fraud.

The memorandum of points and authorities filed on Tuesday says:

“Although the details pertaining to each of the four clients underlying the charges in the indictment differ, the general pattern was the same. Defendant would lie about the true terms of the settlement agreement he had negotiated for the client, conceal the settlement payments that the counterparty had made, secretly take and spend the settlement proceeds that belonged to the client, and lull the client into not complaining or investigating further by providing small "advances" on the supposedly yet-to-be paid funds. Through this multi-year fraudulent scheme, defendant stole millions of dollars from his clients.

“Defendant was also a tax cheat.”

The memorandum goes on to say:

“Defendant's scheme to defraud his clients was cruel—often reducing those clients to begging for needed funds and making them feel beholden to him when he ‘advanced’ or ‘loaned’ them funds that were, in fact, the clients' own money; callous—blaming and disparaging the supposedly derelict counterparties for the ‘missing’ money that defendant himself had stolen; and calculating—with defendant exploiting his knowledge of the legal system to conceal his thefts by falsely telling his victims that the settlements were confidential and dire consequences would follow if they discussed their cases with anyone other than defendant.”

It adds that his “tax fraud scheme was massive, resulting in losses to the federal treasury of over $3.2 million from just the failure to pay payroll taxes” for his investment firm “and harming hundreds of his employees whose payroll taxes he stole” The memorandum comments:

“There was no excuse for defendant's criminal conduct, which was motivated solely by arrogance and greed.”

It declares:

“[I]f defendant accepts responsibility for his conduct, the government submits that a sentence of 210 months (consecutive to any previously imposed sentences) is appropriate and necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing in this case. In the event that defendant does not accept responsibility for his offenses, the government recommends that a higher sentence be imposed.”

By contrast, the Probation Office—noting Avenatti’s “stable work history as an attorney” and being “a devoted father to his children”—has recommended a sentence of 12.6 years in prison, with five of those years to run concurrently with terms imposed in federal court in New York.

Avenatti will be sentenced by Senior Judge James V. Selna.

Sept. 27: U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York ordered Avenatti to pay $148,740 to his former client Stephanie Clifford—known as “Stormy Daniels”—as restitution.

Avenatti was sentenced by Furman on June 2 to four years in prison by Furman on fraud and aggravated identity theft counts in connection with cheating Daniels out of nearly $300,000. The judge said at the sentencing hearing that Avenatti applied “his intelligence and formidable legal skills, not for good, not for his clients’ interest, but for his own.” He said the defendant had been “brazenly lying to and stealing from” his clients, then “defaming them, both privately and publicly, when they had the audacity to confront him for his crimes.”

He was convicted of the charges on Feb. 4.

Avenatti pilfered money from Daniels that was an advance in connection with her book, “Full Disclosure,” in which she tells of her affair with then-President Donald Trump. Avenatti forged her signature on a letter to her literary agent, directing that payments be sent to a bank account he controlled. Avenatti represented himself in the proceeding.

Furman ordered that debts be paid to natural persons in preference to corporations—in particular, Nike, from which he attempted to extort funds.

July 28: Orange Superior Court Judge Walter F. Schwarrm ordered that a default judgment against Avenatti be entered in the amount of $16,102,467.60. The award was based on a jury’s finding on June 22 that Avenatti wrongfully failed to pay the law firm of Stoll Nussbaum & Polakov APC its share of the $15,335,683.42 in attorney fees paid under the settlement of a case. The money went into Avenatti’s client trust account.

Schwarrm’s award was pursuant to Penal Code §496(c) which provides for a trebling of damages where property has been stolen. The judge declined to award punitive damages, explaining that “there is no evidence regarding the current financial condition” of Avenatti.

•July 21: The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revive Michael Avenatti's $250 million defamation action against Fox News Network over coverage of his arrest in 2018. Judge Margorie O. Rendell recited:

“Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Avenatti is a celebrity lawyer who rose to public prominence in early 2018 by representing Stephanie Clifford (a/k/a Stormy Daniels), a woman with whom then- President Trump had allegedly had an extra-marital affair. But Avenatti’s freshly minted fame soon took on a different hue when, in November 2018, he was arrested by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department. Given his public profile, his arrest was covered extensively in the media, including by Defendant-Appellee Fox News Network…and the individual Defendant-Appellees, all of whom were on-air personalities for Fox News. Avenatti claims that the Defendants engaged in a ‘purposeful and malicious’ campaign of defamation and slander against him by lying, on air and in print, about the details of his arrest.”

Avenatti sued in state court in Delaware; Fox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware based on diversity of citizenship; Avenatti then, without leave to do so, added a Californian as a defendant in an effort to deprive the federal court of jurisdiction; Judge Stephanos Bibas dismissed the Californian as defendant, restoring complete diversity; he later dismissed the action based on a lack of a plausible claim.

On appeal, Avenatti argued that once he added the defendant, Bibas was obliged to remand the case to state court, and the District Court lacked jurisdiction from that point on. Rejecting the contention, Rendell wrote:

“We think the District Court chose the correct path. Where, as here, a nondiverse defendant has been added post-removal by amendment as of right, courts may sua sponte consider dropping the spoiler under Rule 21.”
She said that “[i]f the new defendant is dispensable and can be dropped without prejudicing any party,” the court may proceed to decide if the action should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

In past years:

July 8, 2021: Avenatti was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison by U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe, also of the Southern District of New York, based on his effort to exact a sum of about $25 million from Nike by threatening to blacken its reputation in litigation if it did not comply. The judge said in imposing the sentence:

“Mr. Avenatti's conduct was outrageous. He hijacked his client's claims and he used those claims to further his own agenda, which was to extort millions of dollars from Nike for himself....[His client] was never more than a convenient pawn for Avenatti, a vehicle for Avenatti to extract millions from Nike. But Mr. Avenatti did more than hijack his client's claims for his own financial gain. He outright betrayed his client....He had become someone who operated as if the laws and rules that apply to everyone else didn't apply to him.”

•July 29, 2019: State Bar disciplinary charges were filed. Avenatti was placed on interim suspension on June 4, 2020 based on his Feb. 14, 2019 conviction in the Nike case.

Disbarment is inevitable.

The lawyer handled a number of high-profile cases, including representation of Daniels—whose actual name is Stephanie Clifford—in her actions against then-President Donald Trump in an effort to skirt a 2016 nondisclosure agreement she signed in connection with a $130,000 pay-off to her for agreeing not to talk publicly of their 2006 affair. Avenatti also handled her action against the then-president for defamation.

In 2018, he took preliminary steps toward launching a presidential bid that year but decided against running..

Thomas V. Girardi
Former Lawyer

Thomas V. Girardi

Once a superstar among California’s personal injury attorneys, Thomas Vincent Girardi was monied and resided in a Pasadena mansion with his trophy wife, singer/TV personality Erika Jayne.

He’s now disbarred and news accounts commonly precede his name with the adjective, “disgraced.” He’s in bankruptcy, is a conservatee, and is being sued for dissolution of marriage.

Over the decades, complaints by clients to the State Bar of his perfidy, many complaints, went unheeded. He had connections at the State Bar—which included a then-investigator there, Tom Layton, who acted as his boy-Friday.

Allegations against him in State Bar proceedings included the theft of “at least $1,985,615.15” in settlement proceeds that should have gone to children whose parents died in an air crash. He was disbarred after he failed to respond to the allegations.

The State Bar is now taking a hard look at what went wrong. It announced on Oct. 7 that it will make public information on complaints against Girardi that were filed through the years.

State Bar Board of Trustees Chair Ruben Duran said in a statement:

“Given Mr. Girardi’s disbarment and the growing publicly available information about his conduct, the Chair and Chief Trial Counsel have now determined, in the exercise of our discretion, that release of the information is warranted for the protection of the public.”

On Oct. 24, the California Supreme Court approved new State Bar rules under which, effective Jan. 1, lawyers must register their client trust accounts, which will be subject to compliance reviews.

Duran said the new rules “will help us assist attorneys in complying with client trust account requirements. It will also help us detect and address violations of ethics rules, and, when appropriate, refer attorneys for discipline.”

Max Huntsman
Los Angeles County Inspecter General

Thomas V. Girardi

State Attorney General Rob Bonta announced in a Sept. 20 press release that the Department of Justice will look into “whether any individuals committed a crime by allegedly giving advance warning” to Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl and another who were subjects of a search warrant. The person who allegedly provided the tip-off is Max Huntsman, who was hired by the county as “inspector general” to unveil official misconduct.

Appearances are that Huntsman, though 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.

Side questions loom as to whether Sheriff Alex Villanueva did actually have adequate cause to suspect wrongdoing on the part of Kuehl in connection with the awarding of a no-bid contract to a nonprofit headed by a friend and financial supporter of hers, Civilian Oversight Commissioner Patricia Goggans, whom Kuehl appointed to the commission. The supervisor— who happens to be a member of the board of the nonprofit Goggans heads—disclaims any knowledge of the award by a county department until after a controversy blazed. Also in controversy is whether Villanueva, who is in a Nov. 8 election run-off, was simply going after political foes, each of whom earlier called for his resignation.

As to Huntsman, there is the matter of whether he should be prosecuted, as the sheriff urges, and/or fired from his county post, and/or disciplined by the State Bar. On Oct. 5, Villanueva said in a letter to the Board of Supervisors:

“Mr. Huntsman will be removed from all access to Department facilities, personnel, and databases effective immediately. This standard is applied to all Department personnel who are named as a suspect in a criminal case involving felony crimes.”

The facts that emerge are that on the morning of the raid by sheriff’s deputies on her Santa Monica home on Sept. 14, Kuehl told reporters:
“I heard from county counsel last night that she got a tip from Max [Huntsman] that this search would happen this morning.”

KFI newsman Steve Gregory has reported that at 11:41 p.m. the day preceding the raid, Acting County Counsel Dawn Harrison texted Kuehl:

“This was the first my team had heard of it. Max called CoCo tonight with his ‘intel.’ Just wanted to make sure you were aware. Should anything come of this in the morning, Cheryl O’Connor is on standby. If you need her, she will be there.”

“CoCo,” Gregory said, stands for “county counsel” and O’Connor is Kuehl’s attorney.

One deputy district attorney comments:

“What Max Huntsman did is egregious. If he warned the supervisor of the impending search warrant, he completely disregarded his 20+ years training and practice as a deputy district attorney. Disclosure is unethical, invites destruction of evidence, and puts officers in danger.”

“If this was a gang murder investigation, he would never tip off the suspect, but because he has become a political pawn of the Board of Supervisors who appointed him and ensure his continuing hefty salary, he somehow justified it in his own head.”

The critic terms the alleged conduct “[d]isgusting behavior from an attorney who spent the bulk of his DA career in the Public Integrity Unit, prosecuting elected officials.”

The specific sections of the Penal Code alluded to by Villanueva, a non-attorney, do not appear to have applicability to Huntsman, though the question remains as to whether other sections might be pertinent.

Brian Kabatech, Mark Gerogos
Attorneys

Thomas V. Girardi Thomas V. Girardi

The State Bar, under fire for its dereliction in failing to act on complaints about Thomas V. Girardi until his dishonesty became manifest and widely reported by the news media, is now going after two celebrity lawyers—former Los Angeles County Bar Association President Brian Kabateck and criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos—in a move that could backfire if the two are exonerated.

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 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 two 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.”

He continued:

“To that end, it is important to emphasize that the State Bar investigates possible misconduct wherever it might occur. The status of attorneys, or the size of their practice, cannot and will not impact our decisions to investigate misconduct.”

Geragos—who says 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.”


Judiciary: Vacancies, Appointments




Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

President Joseph Biden on Sept. 6 nominated University of Montana law professor Anthony Johnstone for a vacancy to be created upon the assumption of senior status by Judge (and former Chief Judge) Sidney Thomas. Johnstone once clerked for Thomas. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Oct. 12.

 

There are four vacancies.

Two judges, John A. Kronstad and Virginia Phillips, assumed senior status; Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell died; and Margaret Morrow retired and is now an arbitrator/mediator/private judge.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Hernan D. Vera was nominated Sept. 20, 2021, for the seat previously occupied by Morrow.



The nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Patricia Guerrero as chief justice was approved Aug. 26 by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. In order to assume office on Jan. 2, replacing outgoing Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, she must win confirmation by the electorate at the Nov. 8 general election.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has appointed Alameda Superior Court Judge Kelli Evans to take Guerrero’s spot as an associate justice. A confirmation hearing is slated for Nov. 10.

Second District

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct. 7 nominated two Los Angeles Superior Court judges—Gregory Weingart and Victor Viramontes—to serve on the Court of Appeal for this district. The Commission on Judicial Appointments will hold virtual public hearings on Nov. 30 to determine if they will be seated.

Weingart would serve on Div. One, replacing Justice Jeffrey Johnson, who was removed by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Viramontes would take the Div. Eight seat previously held by Justice Maria E. Stratton, now the division’s presiding justice.

There are five vacancies, including the ones Weingart and Viramontes are expected to fill.

The latest was created on July 31 by the retirement of Justice Steven Z. Perren of Div. Six. Justices Laurie Zelon of Div. Seven and Halim Dhanidina of Div. Three previously retired.

Among those whose names were submitted by Gov. Gavin Newsom to the State Bar Commission on Judicial Evaluations to be rated for the office are Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Kevin C. Brazile (the court’s immediate past presiding judge), Rashida Adams, Michelle Kim, Audra Mori, and Helen Zukin (also known as Helen Eisenstein), as well as former Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Frank J. Menetrez who wants to move over from his post as a justice of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Sitting pro tem through Nov. 30 are Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anne K. Richardson and retired Court of Appeal Justices Patricia D. Benke, who sat in the Fourth District’s Div. One, and Steven Z. Perren, who has remained at his desk in this district’s Div. Six.

With stints ending Dec. 31 are Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Natalie P. Stone and Marin Superior Court Judge Geoffrey M. Howard.

Weingart has an assignment as a pro tem in Div. One until Dec. 19, which will be cut short if, as expected, he is sworn in as a justice at the conclusion of the Nov. 30 confirmation hearing.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Armen Tamzarian, whose assignment had been slated to end today, will remain until Nov. 10.


Los Angeles County

Appointed to judgeships on Oct. 7 were private practitioners Lauren Lofton and Adrian Gidaya Roxas, along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Cathy Ostiller of the Central District of California.

Lofton replaces Judge Cynthia L. Ulfig, who retired, Ostiller succeeds Judge Leslie Brown, who retired, and Roxas fills the vacancy created by the appointment of Judge Maame Frimpong to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.               

There are six contests for Superior Court open seats on the Nov. 8 ballot. Pitted in run-offs are Deputy District Attorney Abby Baron and Deputy Public Defender Anna Slotky Reitano (Office No. 60); Deputy District Attorney Fernanda Maria Barreto and Deputy Public Defender Elizabeth Lashley-Haynes (Office No. 67); Deputy District Attorney Renee Yolande Chang and Deputy Public Defender Holly L. Hancock (Office No. 76); Deputy District Attorneys Leslie Gutierrez and Melissa Lyons (Office No. 90); Deputy District Attorney Melissa Hammond and private practitioner Carolyn “Jyoung” Park (Office No. 118); and Deputy District Attorney Karen A. Brako and Deputy Public Defender Patrick Hare (Office No. 151).



 

 

 


Copyright Metropolitan News Company, 1999-2022