In a recent legal development that could precede a significant disciplinary measure, a California judge has recommended the disbarment of Los Angeles attorney Michael Jacob Libman. The recommendation comes after findings that Libman was involved in a scandal concerning a collusive lawsuit with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), followed by an attempt to hack into the communications of a judge and lawyer connected to the case. The decision was set forth by California State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland, citing nine charges of attorney misconduct against Libman.
Libman orchestrated a lawsuit against LADWP by masquerading as a representative for its customers. This lawsuit was allegedly put together by the city’s lawyers themselves, resulting in Libman obtaining a hefty $1.65 million in attorneys’ fees without having accomplished any genuine work. This malfeasance was exposed, prompting Libman to allegedly engage the services of Black Cube, an Israeli intelligence agency, in an attempt to hack the personal email accounts of Judge Elihu M. Berle, who presided over the LADWP litigation, and attorney Brian Kabateck, who replaced Libman as the class representative lawyer.
Judge Roland highlighted the serious nature of Libman’s actions, noting, “Libman’s misconduct is substantially aggravated by multiple acts of wrongdoing spanning several years, significant harm to Kabateck through deliberate intimidation requiring security measures and restraining orders, as well as to the administration of justice.” These remarks underscore the potential disbarment being grounded not only on the hacking attempt but also on broader misconduct that covered up a widespread fraudulent scheme orchestrated to minimize city losses from a flawed LADWP billing system that overcharged customers extensively.
Libman, alongside fellow attorney Paul Paradis, attempted to hire hackers. Paradis had already pleaded guilty to accepting $2.2 million to stage a collusive suit and was cooperating as an FBI informant at the time. The court found that Libman lied about his association with Kingsley & Kingsley on 32 cases to falsely bolster his qualifications for attorney fees.
The case against Libman is now set to be reviewed by the California Supreme Court, providing he does not appeal for further review. Meanwhile, Libman’s objection to the charges, arguing his right to a civil jury trial was breached, was refuted by the State Bar judge, emphasizing that the right to such a trial pertains solely to federal cases.
This case stands as a critical reminder for legal professionals about the severe consequences that can arise from breaching ethical guidelines and engaging in fraudulent activities, both to one’s career and the justice system at large. As the legal community awaits the California Supreme Court’s decision, the outcome could serve as a precedent for dealing with similar cases in the future.