Lawyer must face ethics charge alleging he tried to hire Israeli hackers to access judge's emails
A California bar court judge has rejected a lawyer’s bid to dismiss an ethics charge alleging that he plotted to hire Israeli hackers to hack in to the email and phone accounts of a judge and a lawyer. (Image from Shutterstock)
A California bar court judge has rejected a lawyer’s bid to dismiss an ethics charge alleging that he plotted to hire Israeli hackers to hack in to the email and phone accounts of a judge and a lawyer.
In a Sept. 17 order, State Bar of California Judge Yvette D. Roland denied the motion to dismiss filed by lawyer Michael Jacob Libman of Tarzana, California, Law360 reports.
Libman had argued that the bar charge should be dismissed because it is based on allegations that he talked about his plan, rather than engaging in it. He also claimed that his conversations about the matter were speech protected by the First Amendment. And he claimed that he was entitled to a jury trial under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Ethics regulators initially accused Libman in March of plotting to file a billing-mistake lawsuit on behalf of Los Angeles utility customers that would settle favorably to the city. The suit and the $67 million settlement agreement had been prepared by a lawyer hired by the city, the ethics complaint alleged.
The settlement included an attorney fee award of $1.65 million for Libman. He was ordered in March 2021 to forfeit the fee after he failed to turn over detailed time records for the case and refused to answer deposition questions.
Regulators added an ethics charge for the alleged Israeli hacker plot in June. Libman was accused of seeking to hack the accounts of California Judge Elihu Berle, who had ordered Libman to disgorge attorney fees, and lawyer Brian S. Kabateck, who was appointed to be the new class counsel in the utility case.
Libman allegedly talked about the hacking plot with another lawyer, Paul Paradis of New York, who turned out to be a confidential FBI informant directed to record his phone calls and meetings with Libman.
Roland said Libman’s alleged plot included more than just talk. Libman engaged Paradis as an accomplice, revealed that he was communicating with Israeli hackers, and received an encrypted burner phone to talk with the hackers, Roland said. Libman and Paradis also allegedly discussed costs in a call with one of the hackers.
The ethics allegations are based on overt acts that furthered the hacking plan, and the alleged illicit conduct is not protected by the First Amendment, Roland said.
Libman had also argued that he was entitled to a jury trial before a neutral adjudicator. In support of that argument, Libman cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The June decision held that defendants facing civil penalties for securities fraud before the Securities and Exchange Commission are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
Roland said Jarkesy doesn’t affect the ethics case because the Seventh Amendment applies only to civil trials in federal court and not to state court proceedings.
“Moreover, the state bar court is ‘not an ordinary administrative agency,’” Roland said, citing a 2000 California decision. “Rather, the state bar court functions as an arm of the California Supreme Court, which has inherent jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary proceedings.”
