John Charles Eastman
Suspended Attorney, Ex-Trump Advisor
There were no development this month in the matter of former Chapman University School of Law Dean John C. Eastman’s quest to retain his law license in California. Oral argument in his appeal from the May 1 decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland recommending his disbarment took place on March 19 and the matter was taken under submission. Eastman’s lawyer, Randall Miller, told a three-judge appeals panel that his client had a factual basis for advising his then-client, President Donald Trump, and proclaiming publicly, that the apparent election victory of then-Sen. Joseph Biden in the 2000 presidential race was subject to question. State Bar Co-Deputy Trial Counsel Danielle Adoracion Lee contended that Eastman “made repeated and intentional false statements to the courts, the media, and Vice President [Mike] Pence that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from Trump…and that there were legally valid Trump electors available to stop this deal.” She maintained that Eastman’s “lies were part of a coordinated plan with Trump to deceive Vice President Pence into believing that he had both a factual basis and the legal authority to unilaterally stop the electoral count.” Eastman personally addressed the panel, saying: “To accuse me of making false statements runs afoul of my First Amendment right to raise questions.” He challenged the notion that it is clear that Pence had no authority to delay certifying the election results, saying: “I will tell you, as an expert in this area, the Constitutional Convention made one thing absolutely clear, and that is, it would not want Congress having any role in the choosing of the president….That's the only thing that's clear. Everything else is speculation….” The State Bar is cross-appealing from Roland’s determination 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. In her 128-page decision, Roland said that Eastman’s statements “made with varying degrees of intent, were improperly aimed at casting doubt on the legitimate election results and support for the baseless claim that the presidency was stolen from his client—all while relying on his credentials as an attorney and constitutional scholar to lend credibility to his unfounded claims.” She went on to say: “Most of his misconduct occurred squarely within the course and scope of Eastman's representation of President Trump and culminated with a shared plan to obstruct the lawful function of the government. “While attorneys have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical and legal constraints. Eastman's actions transgressed those ethical limits by advocating, participating in and pursuing a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support. Vigorous advocacy does not absolve Eastman of his professional responsibilities around honesty and upholding the rule of law. While his actions are mitigated by his many years of discipline-free practice, cooperation, and prior good character, his wrongdoing is substantially aggravated by his multiple offenses, lack of candor and indifference. Given the serious and extensive nature of Eastman's unethical actions, the most severe available professional sanction is warranted to protect the public and preserve the public confidence in the legal system.”
Eastman’s lawyers have asserted that discipline cannot rightly be imposed on a lawyer based on his putting forth, in good faith, legal theories that are rejected as meritless.
Thomas V. Girardi
Convicted criminal defendant, disbarred lawyer
A May 8 hearing to determine whether Tom Girardi, convicted of felonies, should be committed to a non-penal facility rather than prison was postponed when, on May 7, the 85-year-old defendant was taken to a hospital by ambulance and admitted due to a “liver dysfunction,”
U.S. District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California on May 8 set a hearing for Mnday to determine his mental capacity and a sentencing hearing for Tuesday.
On May 14, Staton issued an order saying:
“Defense counsel is directed to file a declaration updating the Court regarding Defendant's condition upon the earlier of (1) Defendant's release from the hospital or (2) five days from the entry of this order.”
She said the declaration “may be filed under seal.”
On May 19, Federal Public Defender Samuel Cross of the Central District of California, who is representing Girardi, filed under seal a declaration by Natalie Degrati, an investigator in his office. Other declarations and health records were also filed under seal this month.
The disbarred lawyer—once wealthy, now impecunious and represented in criminal proceedings by the Office of Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California—on Aug. 27 was convicted by a jury on four counts of wire fraud.
The Office of United States Attorney for the Central District of California, in its Dec. 6 sentencing memorandum, called for a 14-year prison sentence, setting forth:
“Former attorney Thomas Vincent Girardi…devised and perpetrated a cunning fraud scheme against the injured clients he had a sworn duty to protect. His years-long theft of client funds from his law firm's trust accounts and the myriad lies he told to cover up his theft represent a calculated and devasting betrayal of the very people that turned to him for help in their darkest hour. As proved at trial, defendant stole millions of dollars in client settlement funds and failed to pay his clients the money that was due them. In carrying out this scheme, defendant provided a litany of false excuses for failing to pay clients and, with the assistance of co-defendant Christopher Kamon…, used his law firm's accounts like a personal piggy bank. Defendant also operated the law firm he founded, Girardi Keese, like a Ponzi scheme by using new victim client settlement money to pay previously defrauded clients, while he and Kamon also used the embezzled client funds to pay law firm expenses and to enrich themselves.
“Although complaints of misappropriated client funds had swirled around defendant for decades, his massive fraud was finally brought to light at the end of 2020 when Girardi Keese descended into bankruptcy and closed and defendant was referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Defendant has now been convicted by a jury of felonies related to the theft of client funds in the four cases the government presented at trial. Defendant also faces criminal charges in Chicago for similar conduct in that jurisdiction. Although defendant is in his mid-80s and has some cognitive impairment, the gravity of defendant's wrongdoing and the serious and, in many cases, irreparable damage he has done to his clients and the legal profession in general warrant a significant custodial sentence.”
The Dec. 6 defense sentencing memorandum provided by the Office of Federal Public Defender of the Central District of California says:
“Tom Girardi once ranked among the most successful and prominent lawyers in the country. That Tom Girardi no longer exists. Today, Tom Girardi is a broke, half-blind, incontinent, 85-year-old man with dementia. He has lost everything, from his possessions, to his reputation, to his mind. He spends his days in a lockdown memory-care facility where he occupies a shared room and requires round-the-clock assistance for basic tasks. He has to be tricked into taking a shower on the pretense of going to court, and spends his time writing pages of notes about imaginary legal cases and clients that do not exist. He does not recall the trial or the verdict in this matter. He often does not recall close family or his few remaining friends. Multiple doctors have diagnosed him with serious cognitive impairments, and his court-ordered conservator was recently granted major-neurocognitive-disorder powers. If Mr. Girardi receives a custodial term of any length, it will not only result in a hastened, costly, and lonely death in a [Bureau of Prisons] medical ward, but will result in a distinctly-punitive death-in-prison sentence that he will not meaningfully understand.”
It goes on to say:
“The inquiry in this case thus reduces to the following formulation: do the multifaceted commands of federal sentencing make it necessary to transport Mr. Girardi across the country to die in a [Board of Prisons] medical facility, without adequate care and at significant taxpayer expense, as part of a punishment that he will not durably understand, or would it be sufficient to leave Mr. Girardi in his current lockdown medical facility, paid for by untainted family funds, where he will never again experience freedom but can receive minimally-humane treatment at the end of his life?”
The memo argues:
“A sentence that balances justice with mercy, punishment with rehabilitation, and legal doctrine with compassion and common sense would do more to promote respect for the law at this point than one driven by retribution. Given the unique circumstances of this case, lifetime confinement to a medical facility would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve all the goals of federal sentencing.”
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” star 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.
An indictment in the Northern District of Illinois stems from the former 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. Boeing had manufactured the aircraft, and agreed to pay $500 million to the survivors.
Trial had been scheduled for March 3. However, prosecutors there have indicated they might drop charges against Girardi, depending on what the sentencing decision is here, and on Jan. 22, Judge Mary M. Rowland held that the time for bringing him to trial “is excluded until 6/30/25 in the interest of justice.” A status report is due on that date as to the government’s intention.
Brian Kabatech, Mark Gerogos
Attorneys
 
More than two-and-a-half 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
On April 2, Div. Five of the Court of Appeal for this district heard oral arguments as to whether a writ of prohibition should issue barring the trial of Diana Teran—a key aide to Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón during his now-ended regime—on six counts of unlawfully accessing and making use of confidential electronic personnel files on deputy sheriffs. The case was taken under submission.
A writ petition was filed Oct. 24. Div. Five on Dec. 23 ordered the Los Angeles Superior Court to show cause on April 2 why the relief prayed for in the petition for writ of prohibition should not be granted,” adding:
“Trial on the charges is stayed pending further order of this court.”
Teran allegedly 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. The case is assigned to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo.
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.
The County Counsel’s Office disclosed, in response to a Public Records Act request by victim rights attorney Kathleen Cady, a former deputy district attorney, that Teran was being paid—$26,970.03 per month, including benefits—while on leave pending resolution of the charges.
County Civil Service Rule 16.01 provides that “[l]eaves of absence from regular duties, with pay, may be granted only by the appointing power under such conditions and for such periods as established by the board of supervisors, when such leaves are determined to be in the best interests of the service.” Rule 16.02 says that leaves without pay may be granted for reasons that are enumerated “or for such other lawful purposes as are deemed by the appointing power to be in the best interest of the department.”
A former high-level member of the County Counsel’s Office commented:
“It should be noted that ‘appointing power’ would mean department head, here Gascon. Although these rules do not expressly address investigations, my recollection is that a leave would be with pay during an investigation but once charges are filed that the leave is without pay (because the employee is frequently dismissed at that point.)”
Other knowledgeable persons say general county policy is to put employees on an unpaid suspension while criminal charges are pending.
‘X’ and ‘Y’
Unidentified Court of Appeal Justices
The Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) on March 26—in its annual report summarizing its actions in the previous year—divulged a failure on the part of appellate justices to carry out duties faithfully—but did not identify the persons.
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, of being delinquent in resolving appeals. (The presiding justice, Vance W. Raye, wound up resigning from office, with a public admonishment and a lifetime bar on holding judicial office; Justices William J. Murray and Coleman Blease had retired earlier that year.)
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 received a private admonishment.
However, he did not respond to a further inquiry as to whether Hull received an advisory letter.
The commission did not disclose whether “X” or “Y” (our denomination, not the commission’s) had been filing monthly salary affidavits attesting to having no cases pending before him or her for more than 90 days. Absent such a filing, pursuant to Government Code §68210, the justice would not have received pay, until the backlog had been cleared up, for his or her services, in light of the command of Art. VI, §19, of the state Constitution.
In 2007, in issuing a “severe public censure” to then-Alameda Superior Court Judge Robert B. Freedman (now a mediator/arbitrator), the commission noted that “[t]he most serious form of wrongdoing is willful misconduct” and said:
“…Judge Freedman's reckless submission of erroneous salary affidavits at limes when he was aware he had overdue rulings, with disregard for whether they were true or false, was willful misconduct. Misconduct of such gravity has warranted removal from office.”
The CJP has, through the years, dealt with failures to adhere to the 90-day rule with varying degrees of concern. Not addressed is that filing a knowingly false statement under oath of having no cases pending before him or her for more than 90 days constitutes the felony of perjury.
Alternatives the CJP had, entailing stronger action than an advisory letter or a private admonishment, were to remove the justice from office, issue a public censure (of a garden-variety sort or one labeled “severe”), or impose a public admonishment.
|
