Former Los Angeles County Bar Association President Paul Robert Kiesel, whose name has come up repeatedly in connection with the Department of Water and Power (“DWP”) overbilling scandal, on Feb. 25 was charged by the State Bar with having “intentionally committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.”
Kiesel this month scored a victory in the preliminary stages by succeeding in having the State Bar Court judge to whom the matter was assigned disqualified, over the protest of the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel (“OCTC”).
The Beverly Hills lawyer is alleged to have participated in setting up a sham case against the City of Los Angeles which the defendant controlled. The ploy is said to have been aimed at minimizing the city’s damages.
Kiesel was an attorney for Antwon Jones, lead plaintiff in an action against the city in connection with massive overbillings of ratepayers. He also represented the city, as special counsel, in a lawsuit against PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP which the city blamed for providing a shoddy billing system, leading to the erroneous billings.
The city hired Kiesel along with then-New York attorney Paul Paradis, now disbarred in connection with the matter.
The OCTC alleges: “Between in or about January 2015 and…March 2019, while serving as special counsel to the City…regarding the LADWP ratepayer billing issues arising from the [billing] system,…respondent colluded with multiple individuals, including attorneys…represent[ing] the plaintiffs in the matter, and the City of Los Angeles to structure, position, and settle Jones v. City in a manner that served the interests of the City…, while concealing…and failing to disclose this collusion to the court overseeing and approving the settlement….”
It asserts that Kiesel made “false and misleading statements” during a deposition conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Kiesel on March 12 filed a motion seeking the disqualification of State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland because she had found disciplinable misconduct, implicating Kiesel, on the part of two other figures in the scandal: Michael Jacob Libman and James Patrick Clark. Roland had determined that Libman should be disbarred and Clark should be suspended from practice for two years.
The motion was referred to State Bar Court Judge Manjari Chawla who, on March 30, denied it, saying:
“Judge Roland's prior rulings were based upon her actual observance of the witnesses and evidence during the independent trials in the two disciplinary actions and related directly to the issues before her, i.e., Libman's and Clark's respective culpability for the alleged misconduct and the recommended discipline to be imposed. The fact that some of those findings—based on the evidence presented—related to Kiesel's alleged role in the underlying litigation does not support a rational inference of bias or partiality. Nor does it indicate that Judge Roland has predetermined the merits of Kiesel's culpability for the wrongdoing alleged in this proceeding.”
On April 9, Kiesel filed a petition for interlocutory review by the Review Department of Chawla's order, asserting that it “is predicated on multiple errors of law that, if left uncorrected, will deprive Mr. Kiesel of his fundamental right to a fair trial before an impartial adjudicator.”
The Review Department on June 18 booted Roland off the case. Presiding Judge Richard Honn wrote:
“After reviewing the record, we grant respondent's petition. Our analysis centers on Code of Civil Procedure section 170.l(a)(6)(A)(iii), which requires disqualification of a judge if ‘[a] person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.’ Applying that standard, Judge Roland’s findings in the two prior disciplinary proceedings, including conclusions that respondent participated in a ‘collusive scheme’ with other attorneys previously found to have engaged in misconduct, and that respondent had ‘conflicting loyalties’ to a client, would objectively and reasonably cause a person aware of the facts to doubt the judge's impartiality. We emphasize, however, that we find no evidence Judge Roland acted with any bias or improper motive in those earlier proceedings or in her answer to respondent’s disqualification motion. Nevertheless, ‘[w]hen Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1 applies, the judge must be disqualified.’ (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.46(A).)”
The matter was reassigned on June 23 to State Bar Court Judge Alison R. Worthington, with a remote
status conference set for July 20.
On Nov. 7, 2023, Paradis was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. of the Central District of California to 33 months in prison for his participation in the scheme. Paradis has accused Mike Feuer of lying about his lack of involvement in what took place while he was Los Angeles city attorney from 2013-22.
Feuer has been mentioned prominently as a possible knowing participant in the skullduggery, but is not the subject of disciplinary proceedings, at present. He is currently a senior policy advisor for Inner City Law Center which advocates for tenants and the homeless.
The opening brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal by Thomas V. Girardi of his August 2024 conviction on four counts of wire fraud was due Dec. 26 but on Dec. 19, his lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Andrew B. Talai, filed a motion for a 90-day extension of time, “to and including March 26, 2026” which, it was noted the government did not oppose. On March 19, a further request for an extension was filed; it was ordered that the brief was due June 24.
On June 26 one more extension—declared to be the last—was granted. The opening brief is now due Sept. 22.
The answering brief is due July 24, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served.”
Girardi, 86, is incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. U.S. District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California on Sept. 19 denied a motion by Girardi for release on bond pending appeal.
The charges stemmed from failing to pay clients the full amounts of settlement proceeds, perpetrating his crimes, according to the indictment, "by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and the concealment of material facts” which he “had a duty to disclose.”
On June 3, Staton sentenced Girardi—once wealthy, now impecunious—to seven years and three months in prison. The sentencing occurred on Girardi’s 86th birthday.
Staton ordered that Girardi make restitution in the amount of $2,310,247.26
The anticipated release date is Aug. 1, 2031. However, Girardi, whose term began on July 17, 2025, is seeking compassionate release.
His estranged wife, Erika Jayne, noted in an episode of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” that Girardi is bound to die in prison, commenting: “I just kind of hoped he’d die before he’d go to prison, just so he could get it over with.”
More than three years and nine months 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.
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.”
