Erika Girardi tries to remove prolific Tweeter as bankruptcy counsel

Citing his public commentary, the estranged wife of disgraced plaintiffs' lawyer Thomas V. Girardi renewed her objection to the appointment of the special litigation counsel investigating her possible involvement in her husband's alleged theft of client money.

Ronald N. Richards has "continued unabated in a jihad of extrajudicial statements, including social media posts and interviews on YouTube and podcasts, virtually always making reference to his new role as special counsel to the trustee," a lawyer for Erika Girardi wrote in court papers filed Thursday.

Erika Girardi, known professionally as Erika Jayne, is an entertainer and member of the cast of "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" TV show. Richards had a long history of commenting about the Girardis on social media and in the news media before a bankruptcy trustee named him a special counsel.

Creditors have forced Tom Girardi and the Girardi Keese law firm into bankruptcy and federal investigators are looking into allegations that he stole millions of dollars from clients. Critics have said at least some of that money was used to fund Erika Girardi's glitzy lifestyle. Richards filed a report last week indicating that the law firm had lent her at least $20 million.

Her counsel, Evan C. Borges, a partner at Greenberg Gross LLP, filed the motion to remove Richards. Borges argued that Richards is making false and inflammatory social media posts in violation of his ethical obligations as a lawyer. Borges included screenshots from Richards' Twitter feed of interactions between Richards and his followers. There are also photos of what appears to be an interaction between Richards and one of the creditors, Kimberly Archie, who also worked at Girardi Keese.

Borges wrote that Erika Girardi also has the right to ask for a jury trial in any future proceedings that Richards may bring against her.

"Accordingly, a significant likelihood exists that Mr. Richards' barrage of social media postings and public statements will improperly prejudice any potential jury pool," Borges wrote, arguing that Richards should not be permitted to serve as special litigation counsel because of his "inherent bias, public harassment and impugning of Ms. Girardi, and complete disregard of his ethical duties as a member of the California bar."

Borges also alleged that Richards violated bankruptcy procedure rules by failing to disclose his involvement in a recent documentary detailing the downfall of Tom Girardi. Richards' interview was cut from the documentary called "The Housewife and the Hustler." According to the motion, bankruptcy rules require parties to disclose all connections to the debtor, creditors, and other interested parties to the proceeding.

Borges declined to comment for this article. Richards replied that he intends to oppose the motion.

It is not the first time Erika Girardi has tried to keep Richards away from the case.

Elissa D. Miller, an attorney with SulmeyerKupetz, and the trustee for the defunct law firm Girardi Keese, wanted to hire Richards to find any assets transferred to Erika Girardi from the law firm.

Her other counsel, Peter J. Mastan of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, argued that Richards' social media commentary about her should disqualify him from becoming special counsel or at least require a gag order.

But U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Barry Russell disagreed, saying he would not stop Richards from exercising his First Amendment right. Richards was appointed in early June. In re: Girardi Keese, 20-BK12022 (C.D. Cal Bankruptcy Ct, filed Dec. 18, 2020).

Richards quickly filed subpoena requests aimed at Erika Girardi's landlord, accountant and family lawyer. On Twitter, Richards has more than 16,000 followers and continues to give them details on the latest events in the Girardi bankruptcy.

Kirsten Hicks Spira, a partner at Jenner & Block and malpractice expert who is not involved in the case, said rules of professional conduct prohibit a lawyer from making false comments on social media or if they have a likelihood of prejudicing a jury. But stating information that is on the public record is fine, according to Spira.

"The bottom line is that whether any particular extrajudicial statement is permissible depends on consideration of many factors, such as whether the statement is false or deceptive, the timing of the statement, whether it is presenting clearly inadmissible evidence, and whether there is a gag order in place, among other things," Spira said.

Spira declined to comment specifically on the Girardi/Richards dispute.

Carol M. Langford, an ethics expert and adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, said if lawyers comment on a case, it must be truthful.

"The biggest issue to me is that tweeting and the like takes away respect for the court proceedings," Langford said. "The public is not able to discern what is truth from opinions. And the comments can take on a life of their own as they are retweeted, causing people to be skeptical of the proceedings. Courts can stop these shenanigans. And they should."

Langford, too, declined to comment specifically on the Girardi/Richards dispute.