The Review Department of the State Bar Court on June 13 affirmed a recommendation by State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland that former Chapman University School of Law Dean John Eastman be disbarred over his role in challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election on behalf of his then-client, President Donald Trump.
Judge W. Kearse McGill wrote for a three-judge panel in saying that “[i]n a democracy nothing can be more fundamental than the orderly transfer of power that occurs after a fair and unimpeded electoral process as established by law” and declaring:
“[W]e reject Eastman’s First Amendment defenses and his various due process claims.…Due to the serious nature and extent of Eastman’s misconduct and the weight of aggravating circumstances in relation to mitigation, we recommend that Eastman be disbarred.”
He said in a 103-page opinion that such action “is necessary to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.”
Addressing Eastman’s contention that he cannot be disciplined for exercising his First Amendment rights in expressing his views on alleged election fraud, McGill said:
“The First Amendment rights of attorneys are linked to the critical role they perform within the judicial system. While these rights are fundamental, they must be calibrated to align with the unique role attorneys play in the administration of justice.”
He went on to say:
“We agree with Eastman that strict scrutiny is the applicable standard when examining core political speech and that Eastman's charged statements involved core political speech….
“The evidence and testimony at trial established that Eastman made multiple false and misleading statements in his professional capacity as an 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. Accordingly, while we have applied the strict scrutiny standard to the facts of this case, we find Eastman's First Amendment defenses regarding his rights to free speech and to petition the government for the redress of grievances do not bar a finding of culpability and discipline in this matter.
“Furthermore, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is employed as a tool in the commission of a crime….Count one…charges Eastman with conduct and statements made in furtherance of a criminal scheme, i.e.. conspiring to promote and assist President Trump in executing a strategy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states….Attorneys do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with clients for purposes that are unlawful, criminal, or fraudulent.”
McGill proclaimed that Eastman “indeed received a fair hearing and thus his due process violation claims lack merit.”
The California Supreme Court has the last word on disbarment but rarely deviates from State Bar determinations.
The State Bar cross-appealed from Roland’s finding that Eastman’s remarks at the “Save America Rally” in the District of Columbia on Jan. 6, 2021, were not geared to incite the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. McGill said Roland correctly dismissed the count that alleges moral turpitude on Eastman’s part based on his remarks.
The Review Department judge wrote that Eastman’s words “establish that he made false and misleading statements, but in no way does he tell the crowd ‘to assault and breach the Capitol’ ” as alleged in the notice of charges.
What Eastman told the crowd does not support “a conclusion that the assault and breach of the Capitol was a foreseeable result of his statements,” McGill wrote, opining that precedent should not be extended to create “vicarious conspiracy liability as a means to establish culpability in a disciplinary matter” based on comments by Trump and by his then-lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Presiding Judge Richard Honn and Judge Tamara Ribas joined in the opinion. In a concurring opinion, Ribas said:
“I write separately to explain that I find the record contains clear and convincing evidence of significant harm as a factor in aggravation…for Eastman's conspiracy with the President and others to coerce the Vice-President to reject electoral votes or delay the electoral count and for his acts of moral turpitude based on the numerous false statements and unsupported legal theories he presented.”
He termed Eastman “a high-profile disseminator of misinformation,” and commented:
“That others may also be responsible for this significant harm does not diminish Eastman's contribution….Eastman was not simply one of many voices. As a prominent figure closely associated with the President, Eastman was a leader and influencer in a collective effort that included the dissemination of falsehoods to overturn the outcome of the presidential election. This resulted in a level of distrust of the electoral process that empowered members of the public to attempt to sabotage a pillar of democracy—the peaceful transfer of power. Recognition…of aggravation for significant harm to the public interest caused by Eastman's misconduct is warranted.”.
U.S. District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California on June 3 sentenced disbarred lawyer Tom Girardi—once wealthy, now impecunious and represented in criminal proceedings by the Office of Federal Public Defender—to seven years and three months in prison based on his Aug. 27 convicted by a jury on four counts of wire fraud.
The sentencing occurred on Girardi’s 86th birthday.
Staton ordered that Girardi make restitution in the amount of $2,310,247.26. What is publicly known of Girardi’s financial condition suggests there’s no chance of any part of that obligation being satisfied, yet the June 4 judgment sets forth:
“Restitution shall be paid in full immediately. The Court finds from a consideration of the record that the defendant's economic circumstances allow for a full and immediate payment of restitution.”
It specifies:
“The defendant shall be held jointly and severally liable with co-participants, Christopher K. Kamon, for the amount of restitution ordered in this judgment. The victims' recovery is limited to the amount of their loss and the defendant's liability for restitution ceases if and when the victims receive full restitution.”
Kamon was chief financial officer of the law firm co-founded by Girardi in 1965, Girardi|Keese, now defunct. He pled guilty last October to two counts of wire fraud and was sentenced on April 11 to nearly 11 in prison and ordered to pay $8,903,324 in restitution.
Girardi is to report to surrender himself at the First Street federal courthouse in the Los Angeles Civic Center on or before noon on July 17.
The day before the sentencing, Staton found that the cognitive impairment suffered by Girardi would not justify sparing him a prison term. He is presently housed in a treatment facility. A notice of appeal was filed June 5.
U.S. Attorney Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli of the Central District of California, commenting on the sentencing. said:
“This self-proclaimed ‘champion of justice’ was nothing more than a thief and a liar who conned his vulnerable clients out of the millions of dollars. My office will vigorously prosecute corrupt lawyers and those who assist them in criminal activities.”
“Champions of Justice” was the title of a weekly radio program in which Girardi was host. He paid various stations to air the show.
Akil Davis, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles field office, remarked:
“Mr. Girardi, once a self-proclaimed ‘legal legend’ who purported to fight corporate greed, will now find himself on the opposite end of justice as he serves out his lengthy prison sentence. Years of hard work went into this case by agents and prosecutors motivated to pursue justice for the victims who were betrayed by Girardi after putting their trust in his corrupt law firm in their time of need and while enduring personal hardship.”
Essayli’s office said in a press statement following the sentencing:
A once-powerful figure in California's legal community, Girardi ran the now-defunct downtown Los Angeles law firm Girardi Keese. For years, Girardi misappropriated and embezzled millions of dollars from client trust accounts at his law firm. The scheme involved defendant Girardi stealing millions of dollars in client settlement funds and failing to pay Girardi Keese clients- some of whom had suffered serious injuries in accidents-the money they were owed.
In carrying out his criminal conduct, from October 2010 to late 2020, Girardi operated Girardi Keese like a Ponzi-scheme by providing a litany of lies for failure to pay clients and directing law firm employees, including co-defendant and former Girardi Keese CFO Christopher Kazuo Kamon, to make incremental payments of newly obtained settlement funds to previously defrauded clients or using the new funds to pay other unrelated expenditures.
Girardi sent lulling communications to the defrauded clients that, among other things, falsely denied that the settlement proceeds had been paid and falsely claimed that Girardi Keese could not pay the settlement proceeds to clients until certain purported requirements had been met. These bogus requirements included addressing supposed tax obligations, settling bankruptcy claims, obtaining supposedly necessary authorizations from judges, and satisfying other debts.
Girardi also diverted tens of millions of dollars from his law firm's operating account to pay illegitimate expenses, including more than $25 million to pay the expenses of EJ Global, a company formed by his wife related to her entertainment career, as well as spent millions of dollars of Girardi Keese funds on private jet travel, jewelry, luxury cars, and exclusive golf and social clubs.
A former superstar among California’s personal injury attorneys, Girardi resided in a Pasadena mansion with his trophy wife, “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” cast member Erika Jayne, 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.
She has disclaimed knowledge of his schemes, let alone complicity in them.
A federal indictment of Girardi in the Northern District of Illinois stemmed from the then-lawyer purportedly stealing 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. Judge Mary Rowland, who sits in Chicago, on May 14 dismissed the charges, at the request of prosecutors, owing to the then-upcoming sentencing of Girardi in Los Angeles.
Girardi had two co-defendants in the federal court proceeding in Illinois. Kamon has agreed to plead guilty there next month; Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira, who had been a member of Girardi|Keese, on June 5 pled guilty to one count of criminal contempt under a plea agreement, a term of which is that other charges will be dropped.
More than two-and-a-three quarters years have 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."
Under fire for its dereliction in failing to act on complaints about Tom Girardi until his dishonesty became manifest and widely reported by the news media, that 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 of last year, 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 obtained a $37.5 million settlement in separate actions against two insurers that failed to pay claims under life insurance policies issued to persons who were slain in the Armenian genocide. Prompted by Los Angeles Times articles suggesting that the lawyers mishandled funds, the State Bar is focusing on what happened to proceeds from a $17.5 million settlement with a French insurer in 2005.
While moneys are missing, the lawyers point out they had nothing to do with the distribution of the proceeds.
Geragos—who has said he will be suing the State Bar—remarked that the State Bar’s mention of Tom Girardi in its news release shows that “all they’re trying to do is deflect” attention from the debacle in failing to take action in response to decades of complaints about Girardi.
Kabateck asserted:
“This is a political stunt by the State Bar.”
Diana Teran
Assistant District Attorney
Div. Five of the Court of Appeal for this district on Thursday granted a writ of prohibition ordering that the Los Angeles Superior Court desist from conducting further proceedings in connection with the prosecution by the Office of Attorney General of Diana Teran, who was a top aide to then-District Attorney George Gascón, deposed by challenger Nathan Hochman in last November’s general election.
Teran was charged with six counts of unlawfully accessing and making use of confidential electronic personnel files on deputy sheriffs. She gained access to the information while employed as a legal advisor to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) and disseminated it to members of the District Attorney's Office after gaining employment there.
At issue before the Court of Appeal was the reach of Penal Code §502(c)(2). It provides that any person who “[k]nowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network” is guilty of a public offense.
Justice Carl H. Moor wrote that the prosecution’s interpretation of the statute “is unreasonable in light of the purely public nature of the court records at issue in this case, even recognizing that the documents concern disciplinary proceedings involving peace officers.”
He noted:
“These court documents convey nothing that a member of the public could not learn by sitting in a courtroom attending the court proceedings or reviewing publicly available information from the court's docket and files.”
Various organizations and individuals—including former Los Angeles County District Attorneys Gil Garcetti and Ira Reiner, former U.S. Attorney Debra Yang of the Central District of California, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney and former Los Angeles County Bar Association President Miriam Krinsky—argued in an amicus brief:
“The court determined that the shared documents were all public records—documents open to the public—yet still held Ms. Teran to answer most of the charges against her, based on a ‘logical inference’ (not supported by any factual evidence) that she accessed personnel records of the deputies in question during her time at LASD.
“Given the court's determination that these records are public, the criminal case against Ms. Teran is astonishingly weak. That said, even if the state could prove the criminal statute's elements, the case for prosecuting Ms. Teran still falls short given the special and heightened constitutional and statutory disclosure obligations of a prosecutor.”
Teran was initially charged by the Office of Attorney General with 11 counts, but that office dropped three counts and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sam Ohta, after a four-day preliminary hearing, dismissed two others.
The lawyer was arrested and booked on April 27, 2024. She pled not guilty at her arraignment on July 25..
‘X’ and ‘Y’
Unidentified Court of Appeal Justices
The Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) on March 26—in its annual report summarizing actions in the previous year—divulged a failure on the part of two appellate justices to carry out duties faithfully—but did not identify the slackers.
Justice ‘X’
The disciplinary body said it privately admonished “[a]n appellate justice” who “delayed decision in several matters by issuing opinions more than three years after each case was fully briefed and assigned to the justice,” noting:
“In one matter, the delay resulted in actual prejudice to a party who was incarcerated unnecessarily.”
Justice ‘Y’
The CJP reported sending an advisory letter to another appellate justice, saying:
“An appellate justice delayed decision in numerous matters by issuing opinions more than three years after each case was fully briefed and assigned to the justice. The delay in some of those appeals exceeded four years.”
An inquiry was emailed to Third District Court of Appeal Justice Harry E. Hull who has been publicly identified by appellate attorney Jon B. Eisenberg of Sonoma County as being delinquent, along with others in the Sacramento-based court, in resolving appeals.
The presiding justice of that district, Vance W. Raye, wound up resigning from office, with a public admonishment and a lifetime bar on holding judicial office; then-Justices William J. Murray and Coleman Blease had retired earlier that year. Murray
A response came from San Francisco attorney James A. Murphy—who has represented several judges before the CJP—saying that it is “false!” that Hull had been socked with a private admonishment.
However, he did not respond to a further inquiry as to whether Hull received an advisory letter.
In light of secrecy in connection with CJP proceedings, there is no clue as to why Justice Y was favored with leniency..
