The State Bar Court on July 9 transmitted to the California Supreme Court its recommendation that former Chapman University School of Law Dean John Charles Eastman be disbarred over his role in challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election on behalf of his then-client, President Donald Trump. It attached a proposed order, to be signed by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, declaring:
“The court orders that John Charles Eastman (Respondent), State Bar Number 193726, is disbarred from the practice of law in California and that Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys.”
Also on July 9, the State Bar Court filed and served a certificate of costs setting forth that Eastman owes it $55,608.27.
This comes on the heels of a June 13 decision by the Review Department of the State Bar Court affirming the recommendation by State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland that Eastman’s law license be lifted.
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
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.”
Slightly less than three 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 July 16 denied a petition for rehearing sought by the Office of Attorney General in the case of Diana Teran, a top aide to then-District Attorney George Gascón who was deposed by challenger Nathan Hochman in last November’s general election.
On June 26. that division granted a writ of prohibition ordering that the Los Angeles Superior Court desist from conducting further proceedings in connection with the prosecution of Teran who 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 (the lowest form of discipline) to another 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.
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.
