FOLLOW US

Los Angeles, CA - A California judge on Tuesday chastised a lawyer representing former clients of Tom Girardi accusing the state bar of "rampant corruption," telling the attorney over the phone that he is "nonplussed" as to why he attempted to skip the hearing on the bar's motion to dismiss the case.

When the hearing began, attorneys for the bar and some of its individual employees who are defendants in the suit were present in the courtroom, while Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stuart M. Rice noted that an attorney for the plaintiffs was apparently headed for the airport on his way out of town.

That attorney, Daniel A. Osborne of Osborne Law PC, was on the phone, but the judge lectured him for not contacting the court to say that he planned to submit on the court's tentative ruling, which went almost entirely against his client but allowed leave to amend the complaint.

"I spent my Memorial Day finishing this ruling," the judge said. "It's a tentative ruling, it says right on it, it's a tentative ruling, and I am nonplussed as to why plaintiff's counsel who worked so hard to write this complaint and oppose this demurrer would not be here." The judge added that his staff told him Osborne had flown into Los Angeles for the hearing from New York.

The judge also said that instead of contacting the court and saying, "I'm going to stipulate and submit on the tentative," Osborne "just made his way to the airport" instead of making a court appearance.

"Now, I don't know what's going on with you, Mr. Osborne, but you have to explain yourself," the judge added.

Osborne apologized to the judge and said he saw the tentative ruling Monday night and "just assumed that was the ruling of the court."

The judge told Osborne that even though a lawyer may want to submit on a tentative ruling, the court might still want to hear oral argument and appearances from counsel. The judge added that counsel who wish to submit on a tentative must still call or write in to the court, but "you did none of that, and just made an assumption and headed to the airport, which is really surprising."

Following arguments from the parties, the judge made the tentative the final ruling, which sustained the defendants' demurrer on all claims but with leave to amend, except for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, which was sustained without leave to amend because the plaintiffs stipulated to dropping the claim.

The putative class action was filed in September against the state bar and some of its former high-level employees by Ana Agaton and Arturo Emanuel Agaton, alleging the bar was negligent in its handling of Girardi, who has been disbarred and is facing federal criminal charges over allegations he and his defunct firm, Girardi Keese, stole millions from clients.

Girardi was a prominent plaintiffs lawyer in California, famed for his role in obtaining a $333 million water pollution settlement, which was dramatized in the 2000 film "Erin Brockovich." However, in December 2020, an Illinois federal judge found that he and his firm, Girardi Keese, had misappropriated at least $2 million in settlement funds meant for the survivors of plane crash victims. Numerous other former clients have made similar allegations, and both Girardi and his firm have been forced into bankruptcy.

In early 2023, Girardi was charged with wire fraud over the alleged theft of millions from his firm's former clients. That case is still ongoing.

The Agatons allege they are among Girardi's victims, and say the former attorney represented them as part of a class action lawsuit against TXI Industries claiming the company's emissions of excessive levels of chromium 6 in Riverside, California, led to the death of their 6-year-old son from brain cancer. A class settlement for $31 million was announced in the case in 2015, but Girardi never paid the Agatons their share of the TXI settlement proceeds, or likely any other TXI plaintiffs, according to the suit.

The suit targets the bar and some of its former top employees and trustees over the bar's allegedly "rampant" corrupt ties to Girardi, saying the bar failed to discipline the attorney, which led to the Agatons' victimization. The suit seeks to represent a class of victims who lost money due to the bar's alleged actions.

The suit included claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, and civil conspiracy.

The bar has faced criticism in the wake of the Girardi scandal following revelations it failed to publicly discipline Girardi despite receiving more than 150 complaints against him in the four decades before the scandal came to light in December 2020.

Between 1992 and 2020, the bar found a high likelihood that Girardi had committed an offense in 13 cases, including seven in which he was accused of stealing or mishandling client funds. But he settled them all out of public view, according to data released by the bar.

"Upon information and belief, the State Bar took no action for Girardi's illegal and unethical conduct, and in fact actively concealed his wrongdoing for their own benefit," the Agatons said in the lawsuit.

The suit claims Girardi showered board members and high-level bar employees with gifts, cash, and rides on his private plane, essentially bribing them to look the other way on his misdeeds.

The defendants' joint demurrer sought to toss the entire suit without leave to amend, arguing, among other things, that only the California Supreme Court has jurisdiction over attorney discipline issues.

Judge Rice did not make his tentative ruling publicly available ahead of Tuesday's hearing, but said that it went almost entirely against the plaintiffs. Although the judge also told Osborne that his absence was not "the end of the world," he continued to criticize the attorney throughout the proceedings on his absence.

"I don't want to make any assumptions," the judge said at one point when asking if Osborne still wanted to submit on the tentative. "You made an assumption, which was the wrong one."

After Osborne said he was submitting on the tentative, Kevin Gilbert of Orbach Huff & Henderson LLP, representing the bar, told the judge that all the claims should be dismissed without leave to amend the complaint, arguing, among other things, that it "infringes" on the power of the California Supreme Court and could lead to conflicting rulings if the court found there was no basis for the bar to have disciplined Girardi but the high court finds there was.