A California Lawyer Faces Ethics Charge for Allegedly Hiring Israeli Hackers to Access Judge’s Emails
A California bar court judge has denied a lawyer’s bid to dismiss an ethics charge alleging that he planned to hire Israeli hackers to access the email and phone accounts of a judge and another lawyer. The lawyer in question, Michael Jacob Libman of Tarzana, California, had argued that the charge should be dismissed as it was based on discussions rather than actual actions. However, State Bar of California Judge Yvette D. Roland rejected this argument, stating that the alleged plot involved more than just talk.
Libman was initially accused of planning to file a billing-mistake lawsuit on behalf of Los Angeles utility customers, which would result in a favorable settlement for the city. The ethics complaint also alleged that he failed to provide detailed time records for the case and refused to answer deposition questions, leading to him forfeiting a $1.65 million attorney fee award. Subsequently, an ethics charge was added for the alleged plot to hack into the accounts of Judge Elihu Berle and lawyer Brian S. Kabateck.
According to the allegations, Libman discussed the hacking plot with another lawyer, Paul Paradis, who turned out to be an FBI informant. Paradis was directed to record his conversations with Libman, during which they discussed communicating with Israeli hackers and even received an encrypted burner phone for that purpose. They also discussed costs with one of the hackers, further implicating Libman in the alleged scheme.
The ethics charge against Libman is not protected by the First Amendment, as it involves overt acts that furthered the hacking plan. Judge Roland emphasized that the alleged illicit conduct cannot be shielded under free speech rights. Additionally, Libman’s argument for a jury trial based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision was deemed irrelevant, as the Seventh Amendment only applies to civil trials in federal court and not to state bar court proceedings.
Evidence of Alleged Plot
The case against Libman is supported by concrete evidence of his involvement in the hacking plot. Conversations with Paradis, the FBI informant, revealed his intentions to communicate with Israeli hackers and take steps towards accessing the judge and lawyer’s accounts. The use of an encrypted burner phone and discussions about costs with the hackers demonstrate a clear intent to carry out the plan.
Judge Roland’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss the ethics charge underscores the seriousness of the allegations against Libman. The bar court judge’s ruling indicates that the evidence presented against the lawyer is substantial and warrants further investigation. The involvement of an FBI informant adds a layer of complexity to the case, revealing the extent to which Libman allegedly went to execute the hacking plot.
Implications of the Allegations
The allegations against Libman raise significant ethical concerns regarding the conduct of legal professionals. The use of hackers to gain unauthorized access to email and phone accounts undermines the integrity of the legal system and violates privacy rights. If proven true, the actions of the lawyer in question could have far-reaching consequences for his career and reputation within the legal community.
The alleged plot to hire Israeli hackers highlights the potential risks associated with unethical behavior in the legal profession. Engaging in illegal activities to gain an advantage in a legal dispute not only violates professional standards but also erodes public trust in the legal system. The ramifications of such actions could extend beyond individual cases and impact the credibility of the legal profession as a whole.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ethics charge against Michael Jacob Libman for allegedly hiring Israeli hackers to access a judge’s emails is a serious matter that raises concerns about professional ethics and legal conduct. The evidence presented in the case indicates a deliberate effort to engage in illicit activities, which could have severe repercussions for the lawyer involved. The denial of the motion to dismiss the charge by the California bar court judge underscores the gravity of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation into the matter.
