Suspension Recommended for Ex-Chief Deputy City Attorney

Friday, February 20, 2026

Page 1

Suspension Recommended for Ex-Chief Deputy City Attorney

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

A State Bar Court judge has recommended that former Chief Deputy Jim Clark of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office be suspended from the practice of law for at least two years relating to his involvement in a plan to recruit “friendly” plaintiff’s counsel in a class action lawsuit against the city relating to the municipality’s water and power billing scandal.

In Tuesday’s decision, announced by the State Bar late Wednesday, Judge Yvette D. Roland recommended that the lawyer “be suspended from the practice of law for three years, that execution…be stayed,” and that Clark be placed on probation for a term of three years on the condition that he “be suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of the first two years…until [he] provides proof to the State Bar Court of [his] rehabilitation.”

The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel (“OCTC”) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Clark in September.

Initially asserting four counts of misconduct, OCTC alleged that, Clark, while serving as the second in command at the City Attorney’s Office between 2015-19, secretly colluded to orchestrate class-action litigation against the city in a scheme designed to favorably resolve ratepayers’ claims relating to the 2013 rollout of a disastrous new Department of Water and Power (“DWP”) billing system developed by Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP (“PWC”).

Under the new system, some residents were overcharged while others were never billed, and the city had lost hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue by late 2014. By February 2015, four proposed class-action lawsuits had been filed relating to the billing issues.

Paradis Involvement

In December 2014, ratepayer Antwon Jones signed a letter retaining now-disbarred New York attorney Paul Paradis to represent him in a putative class action against PWC and other unnamed defendants.

In January 2015, the City of Los Angeles retained Paradis Law Group and California attorney Paul Kiesel (a former president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association) to initiate litigation against PWC as part of a purported strategy to shift blame for the billing failure to the consulting firm. Paradis and Kiesel agreed to discontinue any professional relationship with Jones after conflict-of-interest concerns were raised within the City Attorney’s Office.

On Feb. 23, 2015, Clark is alleged to have attended a meeting at DWP in which Paradis proposed that the city regain control in the pending litigation by resolving all ratepayer claims in a single lawsuit handled by a cooperative plaintiffs’ counsel willing to settle on favorable terms. Clark purportedly authorized Paradis and Kiesel to pursue the strategy.

Clark denies having been in attendance at that meeting, but Michael Nagle, general counsel for the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, reported that Clark casually informed him, in March 2015, that he expected another putative class action lawsuit to be filed that “would be beneficial to the City.”

Ohio attorney Jack Landskroner (now deceased) and Tarzana-based attorney Michael J. Libman—for whom the State Bar has recommended disbarment—agreed to take on the case against the city with Jones serving as lead plaintiff. Paradis helped draft the pleading that was filed against his client in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 1, 2015.

Proposed Settlement

That July, a proposed $67 million settlement was announced, with $19 million allocated to attorney fees. Counsel for the plaintiffs in one of the earlier-filed putative class actions expressed his dissatisfaction to Clark, accusing the City Attorney’s Office of engaging in a reverse auction to sell resolution to the lowest bidder among overlapping classes; the settlement was approved in July 2017.

In a February 2019 deposition relating to the city’s lawsuit against PWC, Clark initially admitted that he understood that Paradis had played a role in drafting the April 2015 complaint, but then later denied knowledge.

In Tuesday’s decision, Rogers wrote:

“The evidence demonstrates that Clark was not only present for discussions about regaining control over LADWP-related litigation but was aware that attorneys Paradis and Kiesel had previously represented Jones in connection with a planned lawsuit against [PWC]. This knowledge shows that Clark understood that these attorneys were not neutral actors but had an existing relationship with the lead plaintiff. Despite this awareness, Respondent supported a plan that was developed by Paradis at the February 23, 2015 meeting, to recruit ‘friendly’ counsel for Jones to ensure that the Jones v. City class action could be structured and settled on terms favorable to the City and LADWP.”

Clark’s Denials

She continued:

“Clark denies that the February 23, 2015 meeting occurred and asserts that, if it did, he was not present. He contends that he did not collude with Paradis, Kiesel and others and that there is no documentary evidence establishing his involvement. He further challenges Paradis’s credibility on the grounds that Paradis is a convicted felon and disbarred attorney. While those facts are accurate, Paradis’s testimony is corroborated by Kiesel and supported by documentary evidence.”

The decision declares that Clark violated Business and Professions Code §6106, which prohibits “[t]he commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption” by an attorney, by “deliberately concealing Paradis’s and Kiesel’s prior representation of Jones and their involvement in drafting the Jones v. City complaint, thereby withholding material facts from the interested parties” including the judges overseeing the various lawsuits.

Rogers acknowledged that six witnesses, including retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark Borenstein, testified in support of Clark’s good character but said that the attorney has been found to have committed multiple acts of misconduct as well as having displayed “an attitude that demonstrates [he] lacks ‘a full understanding of the seriousness of his misconduct.’ ”

Before he was hired as Chief Deputy City Attorney, Clark served as a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. As a retired equity member, he maintained a Gibson Dunn email account during his time in public service and at one point used that address to respond to an August 2015 email by outside counsel expressing concerns with Landskroner’s fees relating to the Jones settlement.

His email simply said “Quo” in response to her concerns.

Gibson Dunn also represented the defendant in the City v. PWC case.

Statement on Decision

Erin Joyce, who represented Clark on the disciplinary charges, said of the State Bar’s decision:

“It is both unfortunate and frustrating that the Decision of the State Bar Court—like the lawyers who brought the case against Mr. Clark, itself another organ of the State Bar—chose to credit the fictitious story of a twice-disbarred convicted felon who stole $28 million from the ratepayers of the City of Los Angeles over the credible sworn testimony of Mr. Clark and a half-dozen other long-time members of the California Bar, all with unblemished records of ethical behavior and professionalism. Many of the Court’s conclusions are proffered without any reference to, or support in, the evidence in the record; many others are explicitly contradicted by that very evidence. This decision is both unjust and wrong. We are considering next steps, including appeal.”

A decision may be contested in the State Bar Court’s Review Department. The California Supreme Court has the final say-so in disciplinary cases but seldom rejects a State Bar recommendation.

Neither then-City Attorney Michael Feuer nor Kiesel has been indicted or charged in disciplinary proceedings. Feuer has insisted that he had no knowledge of what was transpiring—though Paradis has suggested otherwise—and Kiesel has been cooperating with the authorities relating to the scandal.