Lawyer held in contempt for implying justices were corrupt

A Claremont attorney was held in criminal contempt and fined $2,000 for insinuating a panel of 4th District Court of Appeal justices might be in the pocket of The Irvine Co. and had turned a blind eye to the shenanigans of disgraced lawyer Thomas V. Girardi.

"This isn't some New Age civility initiative," the contempt order stated. "Recognition of the need to protect the institutional respect accorded the courts is a concept that goes back to the Middle Ages."

The justices who issued the order were William W. Bedsworth, Richard M. Aronson and Thomas M. Goethals. In re: Mahoney on Contempt, 2021 DJDAR 5727. They also forwarded a copy of the order to the State Bar for possible disciplinary action.

The attorney, Paul M. Mahoney of Mahoney & Soll LLP, remained defiant on Tuesday, pointing out that the court didn't publish the underlying opinion but did publish his contempt order, and said he intended to appeal.

Mahoney represented Salsbury Engineering Inc. in a contract dispute with Consolidated Contracting Services Inc. In a motion for rehearing filed in March that the justices described as "nine pages of text that more closely resembled a rant than a petition," Mahoney took issue with an unpublished March 2 opinion that said Salsbury Engineering was not entitled to payment penalties.

"Our society has been going down the tubes for a long time, but when you see it in so black and white as in the opinion in this case, it makes you wonder whether or not we have a fair and/or equitable legal system or whether the system is mirrored by [sic] ignored by the actions of people like Tom Girardi," Mahoney wrote.

The lawyer doubled down and added a new accusation in an opposition to the contempt charge. He insinuated that Consolidated Contracting Services might have prevailed because of its contracts with The Irvine Co. -- a third party that "wields a lot of legal and political clout in Orange County," according to the contempt order.

The justices said they could only interpret Mahoney's statements as attacks on the court's integrity. Lawyers should not hesitate to voice their concerns with passion and zeal if they believe the court has made a wrong decision, the justices wrote, "but don't expect to get anywhere -- except the reported decisions -- with jeremiads about 'society going down the tubes' and courts whose decisions are based not on a reading of the law but on their general corruption and openness to political influence."

They fined him $1,000 for the statement about Girardi and another $1,000 for the statement about The Irvine Co.

In an email Tuesday, Mahoney made clear he wasn't prepared to back down, insinuating that the justices had a nefarious motive for publishing the contempt order.

"[T]here is another issue that lawyers should worry about," Mahoney wrote. "The opinion of the Court of Appeal was not published, but somehow holding me in contempt gets published. This is a very important case for contractors in this state and for the Court of Appeal and/or the California Supreme Court. To not publish the opinion is not right. I think I am entitled to say that since I am talking about a matter of law and the discretion of appeal courts to publish or not publish opinions."