State Bar says Girardi is ineligible to practice law; psychiatrist says he has Alzheimer's

The State Bar has deemed Thomas V. Girardi ineligible to practice law -- a move that will hardly surprise California's legal community as the once-successful plaintiffs' attorney continues to battle bankruptcy and a series of lawsuits by clients and creditors alleging he and his firm owe them millions of dollars.

But ethics experts say the State Bar's decision -- which came a day before a psychiatrist stated in court filings that Girardi suffers from Alzheimer's disease -- raises more questions than it answers -- and those questions have to do with the State Bar itself. Among those questions: Why did it take the bar so long to suspend Girardi's license? Why hasn't a consumer alert been placed on Girardi's profile when the State Bar has historically done so on the profiles of less well-connected attorneys, who have faced less serious allegations? And is the bar investigating complaints about Girardi in good faith?

Girardi was enrolled into involuntary inactive status late Tuesday, based on a Feb. 2 order by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge appointing the attorney's brother, Robert Girardi, as his conservator. Dr. Nathan E. Lavid submitted court documents Wednesday stating he believes Girardi has Alzheimer's disease, and said the attorney's "emotional distress is directly related to his dementia and exacerbated by his confusion."

In an email Wednesday, spokeswoman Teresa Ruano said the State Bar made its decision pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6007 (a), which instructs the bar to enroll an attorney as inactive when they have been determined mentally incompetent, require involuntary treatment, or when a conservator has been appointed for their person or estate.

At press time, there were no disciplinary actions against Girardi pending before the bar. But complaints against Girardi and investigations into his conduct -- neither of which the bar discloses to the public -- would effectively be put on hold by the attorney's suspension, said Erin Joyce, an ethics attorney who runs her own practice and previously was a prosecutor for the bar.

In January, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie indicated she would refer Girardi to the State Bar for mishandling client funds.

For some ethics experts, the timing of the bar's decision Tuesday -- which came approximately five weeks after the conservatorship went into place, and three weeks before it is set to expire on March 30 -- is suspect.

Although California Business and Professions Code Section 6007 (a) does not explicitly spell out a timeline for license suspensions once an attorney has been placed under a conservatorship, five weeks is "too long a delay," said Robert Fellmeth, a professor at University of San Diego School of Law. "If he was given a conservator, he ought to be immediately suspended. That's the court's decision that a conservator is warranted," Fellmeth added. "The second that happens it should be automatic."

The fact that a consumer alert was not placed on Girardi's profile Tuesday -- and continued to be absent from his profile as of press time Wednesday -- should also raise eyebrows, Fellmeth said -- particularly since multiple misconduct lawsuits filed by former clients and creditors resulted in judgments totaling millions of dollars in recent years. The bar "should have put a consumer notice out 10 years ago with this guy," Fellmeth said.

Joyce agreed. When "there's a serious allegation of missing money, they can put a consumer alert on an attorney's State Bar profile," she said. "There's no consumer alert on Mr. Girardi," even though the many allegations should warrant one, Joyce said, adding she has seen the bar place consumer alerts on the profiles of "very low level attorneys" facing far fewer -- and less serious -- allegations than Girardi.

A lengthy Los Angeles Times story that was published last weekend and detailed Girardi's long-standing influence over the State Bar referenced multiple instances when complaints about Girardi resulted in investigations, which had to be conducted by outside counsel due to conflicts of interest. Those investigations either resulted in low-key or no discipline, The Times reported.

But Fellmeth said when it comes to Girardi's discipline, favoritism may not be as pressing an issue as the bar's long-standing inability to properly outfit its disciplinary system. "It's an example of lack of adequate resources," he said.

Staff Writer Henrik Nilsson contributed to this report.