Lawyer faces ethics charge for allegedly trying to hire Israeli hackers to hack judge’s emails
Ethics
Lawyer must face ethics charge alleging he tried to hire Israeli hackers to access judge’s emails
September 19, 2024, 11:52 am CDT
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 his conversations on the matter were protected speech under 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 ethics complaint alleged that the settlement agreement and the lawsuit for $67 million were prepared by a city-hired lawyer. 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. Roland said that Libman had Paradis act as an accomplice and revealed to him that he was in contact with Israeli hackers. He also received an encrypted burner telephone to communicate with the hackers. Roland said that the ethics allegations were based on overt actions that furthered a hacking plan. The alleged illicit conduct was not protected by the First Amendment. Libman cited Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy to support that argument. 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.”
