Rudy Giuliani appeared in a federal courtroom in Manhattan on Friday for a hearing on whether he should be held in contempt after the onetime personal attorney for President-elect Donald Trump allegedly flouted multiple court orders in connection with the two Georgia election workers he defamed trying to collect the $148 million judgment awarded in their favor.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, a Trump appointee, ordered Giuliani to appear in person for the Jan. 3 hearing on the contempt issue following numerous requests from the plaintiffs regarding his “consistent pattern of willful defiance” involving court orders to turn over of his personal property and provide information to plaintiffs for discovery.

Liman on Thursday rejected Giuliani’s last-minute request to appear virtually for the contempt hearing after the former New York City mayor said he was “having medical issues with his left knee” as well as “breathing problems due to lung issues” that were the result of him “being at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001.”

The hearing, which began at 10 a.m., went through the day and will be continued at the same time on Monday. However, Liman will allow Giuliani to appear virtually for the proceedings as he will not be questioned by plaintiff’s counsel again.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Phishing emails purported to be from PACER’s…

Cybersecurity

Phishing emails purported to be from PACER’s electronic filing system target lawyers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 7, 2024, 9:42 am CST

Lawyers who respond to fake emails purporting to be from PACER’s electronic filing system are being led to malicious websites with computer viruses, the U.S. federal judiciary warned Wednesday.

The emails claim to contain notices of electronic filing from PACER’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, known as CM/ECF. Lawyers are told to reply immediately, and when they do, they are sent a link to access the supposed case documents. Instead, the link sends lawyers to the malicious website.

The scam targets lawyers across the country, according to the IT Security Office for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

“To avoid becoming a victim of the scam,” the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said, “be sure to always validate cases and case documentation directly through your local federal court’s CM/ECF system. Never download attachments or click on links from unofficial or questionable sources.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer must face ethics charge alleging he…

Ethics

Lawyer must face ethics charge alleging he tried to hire Israeli hackers to access judge’s emails

By Debra Cassens Weiss

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.

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.”