Tom Girardi – disgraced legal titan, former ‘Real Housewives' husband – sentenced to 7 years in prison
A judge sentenced disgraced legal titan Tom Girardi, once among the nation's most formidable trial attorneys, to seven years in prison Tuesday for stealing millions of dollars from clients.
U.S. District Court Judge Josephine Staton said in handing down the sentence that Girardi had used the settlements of catastrophically injured clients to underwrite a lifestyle of 'private jets and country clubs' for himself and his wife, 'Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' star Erika Jayne.
'Mr. Girardi further victimized these people and did so at the lowest point in their lives,' Staton said.
Girardi, who turned 86 on Tuesday, was convicted of four counts of wire fraud last year. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease five years ago, though the level of his impairment is disputed.
He stared blankly at the judge as she spoke. Given a chance to address the court, Girardi spoke in a soft, muffled voice, blaming poor accounting and insisting he had not profited personally.
'I think it's clear there was some negligence involved, but everybody got everything they were supposed to get. That's the important thing,' he said.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Scott Paetty said the statement was just the most recent in a string of falsehoods from Girardi.
'We are here today because of Tom Girardi's lies,' he said, calling Girardi's handling of client money at the now defunct Girardi Keese law firm a 'textbook Ponzi scheme.'
Staton rejected a proposal from Girardi's attorneys that he be allowed to serve any sentence in the locked Alzheimer's care unit at the Seal Beach nursing home where he has lived for several years.
'If he's in prison, he will not understand why,' defense attorney Samuel Cross told the judge, describing Girardi's memory as 'frozen in amber 30 years ago' when he was at the height of his career.
Staton said she was not moved by what she called his 'cognitive decline,' saying his advanced age and various maladies actually made his imprisonment less harsh than it might have been when he was at the height of his power.
'This is not a greater punishment because he is old. It is lesser because he gives up less,' the judge said.
Girardi is to surrender to prison authorities by July 17.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
22 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. lawyer and son-in-law of Tom Girardi pleads guilty to contempt of court
Days after a judge sentenced legal titan Tom Girardi to seven years in prison for stealing from clients, his son-in-law — formerly a high-ranking attorney at his now-defunct firm — pleaded guilty to a federal charge in Illinois. David Lira, 65, of Pasadena, admitted Thursday to one count of contempt of court for defying a Chicago judge's order concerning the distribution of settlement funds to clients whose relatives had perished in a 2018 Indonesian plane crash. As part of broader litigation to hold Boeing accountable for defects in its 737-MAX jets, Lira and Girardi negotiated payouts totaling $7.5 million for a group of widows and orphans in 2020. But the clients, who lived in Indonesia, did not receive their full settlements. Evidence would later emerge that Girardi was routinely using client money to underwrite a lavish lifestyle with his wife, 'Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' star Erika Jayne. Lira 'knew that Girardi did not pay the Lion Air Clients' settlement funds in full, in contravention of [U.S. District] Judge (Thomas) Durkin's orders, despite [the Indonesian clients'] inquiries about and demands for their Settlements,' according to a plea agreement filed Thursday. Durkin referred the case for criminal investigation, and prosecutors in Chicago filed wire fraud and other charges against Lira and Girardi in 2021. Prosecutors dropped the Chicago-based case against Girardi, 86, last month. Girardi was separately convicted of wire fraud last year in Los Angeles, resulting in the seven-year prison sentence handed down this week. Lira, who is married to Girardi's daughter Jacqueline, began working at his father-in-law's firm in 1999. He was sometimes called the firm's senior partner, though Girardi was the sole owner. Lira resigned from Girardi Keese about six months before its 2020 collapse, after confronting his father-in-law about the Lion Air case and demanding that Girardi pay the victims. As he moved on to another firm, Lira did not alert the victims or authorities about Girardi's mishandling of the money. Lira's defense attorney, Damon Cheronis, noted that 'the plea agreement did not assert any acts of fraud on the part of Mr. Lira.' 'Mr. Lira continually asked Mr. Girardi to pay these clients their rightful settlement money pursuant to the court order, however Girardi did not,' Cheronis said in a statement. Lira is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 8. Prosecutors have not yet recommended a particular penalty, but they indicated in the plea agreement that under federal sentencing guidelines, Lira faces six to eight years in prison. Girardi and Lira represented the victims in the Lion Air crash alongside Chicago-based lawyer Jay Edelson. It was ultimately Edelson who brought to the judge's attention that the Indonesian clients were not paid by Girardi. 'We're pleased that David Lira, after years of portraying himself as an innocent bystander, has finally admitted he is a criminal,' Edelson told The Times on Thursday. 'We remain hopeful that the other criminals who helped Girardi pull off the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the plaintiff's bar will also face disbarment and long prison sentences.' The widows and orphans ultimately received their settlement payments after Edelson's insurance provider agreed to foot the cost. The State Bar is pursuing disciplinary action against Lira and two other attorneys who worked at Girardi Keese. Lira continues to practice for a Century City law firm, though restrictions imposed by a bar court judge prohibit him from handling client money.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A Teen Killed Himself After Talking to a Chatbot. His Mom's Lawsuit Could Cripple the AI Industry.
The Orlando Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will hear allegations against Character Technologies, the creator of in the wrongful death lawsuit Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. If the case is not first settled between the parties, Judge Anne Conway's ruling will set a major precedent for First Amendment protections afforded to artificial intelligence and the liability of AI companies for damages their models may cause. The case was brought against the company by Megan Garcia, the mother of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III, who killed himself after conversing with a chatbot roleplaying as Daenerys and Rhaenyra Targaryen from the Game of Thrones franchise. Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law, shares examples of Sewell's conversations included in the complaint against Character Technologies. Garcia's complaint alleges that Character Technologies negligently designed "as a sexualized product that would deceive minor customers and engage in explicit and abusive acts with them." The complaint also asserts that the company failed to warn the public "of the dangers arising from a foreseeable use of including specific dangers for children"; intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Sewell by "failing to implement adequate safety guardrails in the product before launching it into the marketplace"; and that the company's neglect proximately caused the death of Sewell who experienced "rapid mental health decline after he began using and with which he conversed "just moments before his death." Conway dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on the grounds that "none of the allegations relating to Defendants' conduct rises to the type of outrageous conduct necessary to support" such a claim. However, Conway rejected the defendants' motions to dismiss the rest of Garcia's claims on First Amendment grounds, saying, "The Court is not prepared to hold that the Character A.I. [large language model] LLM's output is speech at this stage." Adam Zayed, founder and managing attorney of Zayed Law Offices, tells Reason he thinks "that there's a difference between the First Amendment arguments where a child is on social media or a child is on YouTube" and bypasses the age-verification measures to consume content "that's being produced by some other person" vs. minors accessing inappropriate chatbot outputs. However, Conway recognized Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) that the First Amendment "is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers." Conway ruled that defendants "must convince the court that the Character A.I. LLM's output is protected speech" to invoke the First Amendment rights of third parties— users—whose access to the software would be restricted by a ruling in Garcia's favor. Conway says that Character Technologies "fail[ed] to articulate why words strung together by an LLM are speech." Whether LLM output is speech is an intractable philosophical question and a red herring; Conway herself invokes Davidson v. Time Inc. (1997) to assert that "the public…has the right to access social, aesthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences." Speech acts are broadly construed as "ideas and experiences" here—the word speech is not even used. So, the question isn't whether the AI output is speech per se, but whether it communicates ideas and experiences to users. In alleging that targeted her son with sexually explicit material, the plaintiff admits that the LLM communicated ideas, albeit inappropriate ones, to Sewell. Therefore, LLM output is expressive speech (in this case, it's obscene speech to express to a minor under the Florida Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act.) The opening paragraph of the complaint accuses Character Technologies of "launching their systems without adequate safety features, and with knowledge of potential dangers" to "gain a competitive foothold in the market." If the court establishes that the First Amendment does not protect LLM output and AI firms can be held liable for damages these models cause, only highly capitalized firms will be able to invest in the architecture required to shield themselves from such liability. Such a ruling would inadvertently erect a massive barrier to entry to the burgeoning American AI industry and protect incumbent firms from market competition, which would harm consumer welfare. Jane Bambauer, professor of law at the University of Florida, best explains the case in The Volokh Conspiracy: "It is a tragedy, and it would not have happened if had not existed. But that is not enough of a reason to saddle a promising industry with the duty to keep all people safe from their own expressive explorations." The post A Teen Killed Himself After Talking to a Chatbot. His Mom's Lawsuit Could Cripple the AI Industry. appeared first on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘gold standard' politicizes federal science
The first time Donald Trump was president, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed a regulation known as the 'science transparency' rule. The administration liked to call it the 'secret science' rule. 'Transparency' sounds positive, but this rule instead prevented the EPA from using some of the best available science to protect human health. For example, it required the EPA to ignore or downplay studies that established links between exposure to chemicals and health damage if those studies were based on confidential patient information that could not be released to the public. The problem: Many health studies, including those underpinning many U.S. pollution rules, rely on confidential patient information. A U.S. District Court struck down the rule on procedural grounds a few weeks after it was issued. But now, the idea is back. Trump's so-called Restoring Gold Standard Science executive order of May 23, 2025, resurrects many features of the EPA's vacated rule, but it applies them to all federal agencies. To many readers, the executive order might sound reasonable. It mentions 'transparency,' 'reproducibility' and 'uncertainty.' However, the devil is in the details. 'Transparency' implies that scientists should adequately explain all elements of their work, including hypotheses, methods, results and conclusions in a way that helps others see how those conclusions were reached. 'Data transparency' is an expectation that scientists should share all data used in the study so other scientists can recalculate the results. This is also known as 'reproducibility.' Trump's executive order focuses on reproducibility. If there are errors in the data or methods of the original study, then being able to reproduce its results may ensure consistency but not scientific rigor. More important to scientific rigor is 'replicability.' Replicability means different scientists, working with different data and different methods, can arrive at consistent findings. For example, studies of human exposure to a set of pollutants at different locations, and with different populations, that consistently find relationships to health effects, such as illness and premature death, can increase confidence in the findings. Replicability doesn't require releasing confidential health data, as reproducibility would. Instead, it looks for the same results broadly from other sources. The science transparency rule in the first Trump administration was intended to limit the EPA's ability to consider epidemiologic studies like those that established the health harms from exposure to secondhand smoke and to fine particles called PM2.5 in the air. These attempts to create barriers to using valid science echoed tactics used by the tobacco industry from the 1960s well into the 1990s to deny that tobacco use harmed human health. Many large-scale studies that assess how exposure to pollution can harm human health are based on personal data collected according to strict protocols to ensure privacy. Preventing policymakers from considering those findings means they are left to make important decisions about pollution and chemicals without crucial evidence about the health risks. Trump's new executive order also emphasizes 'uncertainty.' In the first Trump administration, the EPA administrator and his hand-picked science advisers, none of whom were epidemiologists, focused on 'uncertainty' in epidemiological studies used to inform decisions on air quality standards. The EPA's scientific integrity policy requires that policymakers 'shall not knowingly misrepresent, exaggerate, or downplay areas of scientific uncertainty associated with policy decisions.' That might sound reasonable. However, in the final 2020 rule for the nation's PM2.5 air quality standard, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated that 'limitations in the science lead to considerable uncertainty' to justify not lowering the standard, the level considered unhealthy. PM2.5 comes largely from fossil fuel combustion in cars, power plants and factories. In contrast, an independent external group of scientific experts, which I was part of as an environmental engineer and former EPA adviser, reviewed the same evidence and came to a very different conclusion. We found clear scientific evidence supporting a more stringent standard for PM2.5. The executive order also requires that science be conducted in a manner that is 'skeptical of its findings and assumptions.' A true skeptic can be swayed to change an inference based on evidence, whereas a denialist holds a fixed view irrespective of evidence. Denialists tend to cherry-pick evidence, set impossible levels of evidence and engage in logical fallacies. The first Trump administration stacked the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which advises EPA on setting health-protective air quality standards, with opponents of environmental regulation, including people connected to industries the EPA regulates. The committee then amplified uncertainties. It also shifted the burden of proof in ways inconsistent with the statutory requirement to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The current administration has been dismantling science advisory committees in various agencies again and purging key EPA committees of independent experts. According to Trump, 'violations' of his executive order will be determined by a 'senior appointee designated by the agency head.' This means a political appointee accountable to the White House. Thus, science in each federal agency will be politicized. The political appointee is required to 'correct scientific information.' Anyone can file a 'request for correction' regarding a published agency report. During the first Trump administration, chemical companies or their representatives repeatedly filed requests for changes to final EPA toxicity assessments on ethylene oxide and chloroprene. The administration delayed health-protective actions, which were finally addressed during the Biden administration for both chemicals. The request for correction process is intended to correct errors, not to bias assessments to be more favorable to industry and to delay protective actions. While the language of the executive order may seem innocuous based on a casual reading, it risks undermining unbiased science in all federal agencies, subject to political whims. Setting impossible bars for 'transparency' can mean regulators ignore relevant and valid scientific studies. Overemphasizing uncertainties can be used to raise doubt and unduly undermine confidence in robust findings. A politicized process also has the potential to punish federal employees and to ignore external peer reviewers who have the temerity to advance evidence-based findings contrary to White House ideology. Thus, this executive order could be used to deprive the American public of accurate and unbiased information regarding chemicals in the environment. That would prevent the development of effective evidence-based policies necessary for the protection of human health, rather than advancing the best available science. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: H. Christopher Frey, North Carolina State University Read more: EPA must use the best available science − by law − but what does that mean? How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn't want you to see EPA's 'secret science' rule will make it harder for the agency to protect public health H. Christopher Frey receives funding from the California Air Resources Board via a research grant to North Carolina State University. He was on leave from NCSU to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2021 to 2024. From 2021 to 2022, he served as Deputy Assistant Administrator of Science Policy. From 2022-20224, he served as the senate-confirmed Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development and concurrently served as the EPA Science Advisor. He was a member of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee from 2008 to 2012, and chaired CASAC from 2012 to 2015.
