State Bar files formal disciplinary charges against Tom Girardi

Weeks after deeming him unfit to practice law, the State Bar on Tuesday filed 14 disciplinary charges against famed plaintiffs' attorney Thomas V. Girardi, accusing him of stealing millions of dollars in client funds.

The bar also placed a consumer warning on Girardi's online attorney profile, which is standard practice when the bar files disciplinary charges, a spokesperson said. Among the charges are accusations that Girardi lied to and stole money from clients between 2018 and 2020 in three matters.

The notice cites a lawsuit in Illinois in which Girardi is accused of misappropriating $2 million owed to families of passengers who died in a Boeing Co. jet crash in Indonesia. Despite owing the money, the balance in Girardi's client trust account was $239,000 in September. He is also accused of lying to his co-counsel in that case, Edelson PC, about disbursement of the money. Edelson PC v. Girardi et al., 20-CV07115 (N.D. Ill., filed Dec. 2, 2020)

Federal prosecutors in Illinois are believed to be investigating Girardi in relation to that case.

Girardi is also accused of withholding money from a client he represented in another wrongful death lawsuit. Judy Selberg's husband died in a boat accident in Arizona and she hired Girardi to represent her and agreed to a contingency fee of 33% if the case settled, which it did for $500,000. Instead of paying out the approximately $334,000 Selberg was entitled to, Girardi only paid $150,000. Selberg sued Girardi last year for the $184,000 balance.

Girardi is also accused of falsely telling clients he could not pay out a $129,000 settlement from a case in the Southern District of West Virginia, because the court had not signed the order approving the disbursement of the funds. But the money was already in Girardi's client trust account. The clients are still missing $55,944, according to the bar.

The bar also said that Girardi has failed to cooperate with investigators who looked into the claims.

"The State Bar is acting swiftly and thoroughly in light of the public attention on this case, as it should, to ensure the public trust is maintained," said legal malpractice lawyer Carl I.S. Mueller of the Maloney Firm APC.

The bar's action follows several dramatic events in the last few months after Edelson filed the lawsuit in Illinois.

Girardi and his law firm, Girardi Keese, were forced by creditors into bankruptcy. Girardi was assigned a temporary conservator and enrolled as inactive by the bar. A psychiatrist stated in court filings that the attorney has Alzheimer's disease. Both the bar and Edelson dispute this claim. When Girardi tried to voluntarily relinquish his right to practice law, the bar said that was not possible.

The bar objected to a conservatorship petition that Girardi's brother was granted in February, stating that the petition had been filed under "highly unusual circumstances" and would prevent the bar from proceeding with disciplinary charges.

Girardi and his law firm also face a host of lawsuits and claims in bankruptcy court, including from his former law partner, Robert M. Keese, and his son-in-law, David Lira, who was a lawyer at the firm.

A lawyer for Girardi could not be reached for comment.

Former lawyers who worked at Girardi Keese have also been dragged into the lawsuit against the firm in Illinois. Edelson has questioned what role Lira and Keith D. Griffin played in Girardi's alleged actions. Griffin and Lira have said that Girardi was the firm's sole proprietor with access to client funds. Lira stated in court documents that he was a salaried employee.

Both Lira and Griffin have argued that the Illinois court lacks jurisdiction and wants the complaint against them dismissed since all the alleged wrongdoing occurred in California. But a filing from Edelson on Tuesday cited an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that was published on March 25.

In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, the high court considered whether Ford could be subject to jurisdictions in product liability actions in other states than where their specific cars were manufactured.

"Answering in the affirmative, the Supreme Court reiterated that it has "never framed the specific jurisdiction inquiry as always requiring proof of causation -- i.e., proof that the plaintiff's claim came about because of the defendant's in-state conduct,"' Edelson's motion stated.

Griffin's lawyer declined to comment on the recent development. Lira's lawyer could not be reached.