Posts

Corrupt JAMS Judges

JAMS Private Judges Accused of Corruption

/in /by

Corrupt JAMS Judges

JAMS is a private arbitration firm based out of Irvine, California. John Trotter helped to start the company, and today he remains one of the principals and a profit-earning shareholder. Trotter and other JAMS private judges have been accused of corruption for allegedly helping attorneys commit fraud and steal millions of dollars from clients. The absence of government regulation of the private arbitration industry has made it possible for unethical lawyers to take advantage of their clients and for big companies to abuse the arbitration system.

For more information about the corruption allegations against the JAMS private judges, keep reading this blog.

No Government Regulation of JAMS Private Judges

JAMS typically uses retired judges to serve as arbitrators and mediators in legal disputes, including business conflicts, contract disputes, intellectual property claims, personal injury claims, and civil rights actions. The former judges who administer cases are known as “JAMS Neutrals,” which is ironic because they are often anything but neutral.

A major problem with the JAMS private arbitration system is that the cases are decided behind closed doors and with little or no scrutiny. For instance, private judges are not subject to regulation by any government agency. The State Bar of California highlighted the issue by declaring in a statement that there is “no overarching regulatory framework for private judging or mediation.” California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil Sakauye recently noted that there needs to be greater government oversight of the private judging industry so that litigants are protected.

JAMS Founder John Trotter Accused of Helping Disgraced Lawyer Swindle Clients

John K. Trotter was a retired California Appellate Justice with an unimpeachable record. Trotter began his legal career as a plaintiffs’ attorney in Orange County, and then moved on to the L.A. County Superior Court bench and later to the California Appellate Court bench. He eventually helped to start JAMS. At one point, the National Law Journal called Trotter “the most influential attorney” for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the entire United States. Now, there are numerous questions being asked about Trotter’s role with JAMS, including whether he helped others use the private arbitration system to defraud participants.

John Trotter & Tom Girardi

John Trotter and JAMS have come under scrutiny in recent years for conflicts of interest in cases involving regular JAMS clients. In one extreme example, JAMS allegedly helped California attorney Tom Girardi steal millions from his clients. During his illustrious legal career, Girardi earned a reputation as a dogged defender of people who had been victimized by large corporations. In litigation involving aerospace company Lockheed Martin, he represented hundreds of workers who had contracted cancer and other illnesses on the job. After securing a massive settlement on behalf of his clients, Girardi enlisted multiple JAMS judges to fairly distribute the funds. The judges were tasked with determining exactly how much money each worker would get based on their specific injuries.

John Trotter served as the “special referee” who oversaw the distribution of settlement money to Girardi’s clients in another major case against a drug company that sold the diabetes medication Rezulin. The plaintiff alleged that the medication caused cancer, liver failure, and other maladies. After helping to secure a $66-million settlement, Girardi used JAMS mediator Trotter to oversee the distribution of funds. Instead of distributing the funds to the victims, however, Girardi diverted the money to his personal accounts. Moreover, while this fraud was happening, Trotter and JAMS did nothing to stop it.

In addition to having the final say on how funds were distributed in Girardi’s lawsuit settlements, Trotter also oversaw a $13-billion trust meant for the victims of Northern California wildfires. Any withdrawals from the settlement fund were supposed to reimburse the attorneys for legal costs related to the case, not for personal expenses. This is where it became apparent that Girardi’s relationship with JAMS judge Trotter was problematic. While Trotter approved millions of dollars in withdrawals for Girardi, he approved just $600,000 in withdrawals by another law firm that worked on the case. Moreover, this wasn’t the only time that a JAMS private judge has been accused of showing favoritism to one party over another.

JAMS Judge Jack Tenner Allegedly Signed False Documents to Defraud Litigants

One of the JAMS judges in the Lockheed Martin case was Jack Tenner, a respected jurist who spent a decade serving on the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench. As an attorney, Tenner had fought against racial discrimination in the city. While serving as a mediator in the Lockheed litigation, Tenner allegedly helped Tom Girardi cheat clients by signing false documents on L.A. County Superior Court letterhead. Those documents directed Comerica Bank to release millions of dollars to Girardi. Later, when Girardi came under fire from clients who questioned what he was doing with their money, Tenner explicitly supported the attorney. In a letter to the plaintiffs, Tenner said that he had personally approved all settlements and legal fees.

JAMS Judge Edward Panelli Accused of Corruption

Another JAMS judge accused of corruption is Edward A. Panelli, a retired California Supreme Court Justice. Panelli socialized with Tom Girardi even as he worked on JAMS cases for the dishonest lawyer. Panelli was chosen by Girardi to oversee the settlement distribution in a high-profile case involving a menopause drug called Prempro that allegedly caused cancer in elderly women. When many of the plaintiffs started asking questions about why they had yet to receive their portion of the $17 million settlement, Girardi said that he withheld the funds because of an order issued by Panelli. Girardi then refused to turn over financial records, as was required under California law.

Girardi’s claim that Panelli was forcing him to withhold funds from the cancer survivors turned out to be a lie. In fact, Panelli had no legal authority over the case because no court had ever appointed him to oversee the settlement. Moreover, Panelli had only spent around 20 hours working on the case. (For which JAMS billed the law firm $78,000, with another $50,000 payment being made directly to Panelli. This amounted to a $5,000 per hour pay rate.) To make matters worse, Panelli – even in his limited capacity – never instructed Girardi to hold back the money. A California magistrate judge later evaluated Panelli’s actions and concluded that the JAMS judge was culpable in the fraud because he had “rubber-stamped” all of the unlawful payouts to Girardi.

In the Prempro case, Girardi even tried to use Panelli to stop a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs. When the clients sued Girardi, he argued that the case should be transferred from federal court to a private arbitration with Panelli making the final ruling. Not only did Girardi fight back against subpoenas and court orders, but so too did JAMS. After Girardi’s clients filed lawsuits to ensure transparency and so that they could finally get their settlement funds, JAMS spent months pushing back in court.

Other JAMS Judges, Arbitrators, and Mediators Allegedly Helped Tom Girardi Steal Settlement Funds

John Trotter, Jack Tenner, and Edward Panelli were not the only JAMS judges accused of helping Tom Girardi scam his clients. One former judge allegedly signed a fake court order that allowed Girardi to secure $3.5 million from a settlement fund meant for workers of Lockheed Martin who had been poisoned at the company’s Burbank facility. Another former state Supreme Court justice employed by JAMS allegedly assisted Girardi as he stole more than $1 million from cancer survivors.

Contact the California Arbitration Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm with experience handling legal disputes that require mediation and arbitration in California, Texas, and New York. Our experienced arbitration lawyers also represent small business owners in class action lawsuits against JAMS. If your case is being administered by JAMS, it is very important that you contact one of our attorneys immediately. Call us or send an email.

Tom Girardi & JAMS Defraud Clients

How Tom Girardi Used JAMS to Defraud Clients

/in /by

Tom Girardi & JAMS Defraud Clients

Tom Girardi has been accused of using JAMS to defraud clients. Girardi was a highly respected California attorney who spent decades representing plaintiffs in class action lawsuits against corporations. JAMS, previously known as Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, is the largest private mediation and arbitration company in the world with more than 400 former judges and legal professionals serving as arbitrators and mediators in California, Texas, New York, and other states. JAMS has come under intense scrutiny from arbitration lawyers and others in the legal community as several of the company’s judges were accused of unethical conduct and corruption.

To learn more about the fraud allegations against Tom Girardi and the JAMS private judges, keep reading this blog.

Tom Girardi Used to Be a Respected California Attorney

Tom Girardi’s abuse of the private judging system lasted decades and affected thousands of clients. Earlier in his legal career, Girardi was one of the lawyers responsible for the case that later inspired the acclaimed movie Erin Brockovich. As an attorney for residents of Hinkley who got cancer from local drinking water, Girardi helped to secure a $333-million settlement.

Girardi’s law firm eventually collapsed as more and more evidence came to light that he had swindled his clients out of millions of dollars. In 2022, Girardi lost his license to practice law in California and his law firm filed for bankruptcy.

Tom Girardi Stole Money from Clients

When a corporation gets sued in a contract dispute, employment claim, consumer action, or some other type of legal dispute, they often rely on JAMS to make sure that the case is handled behind closed doors with an arbitrator or mediator instead of a judge. Additionally, it is not uncommon for retired judges with JAMS to be asked to administer large settlements in mass tort cases. In Girardi’s cases, the JAMS judges failed to notice and/or take action when Girardi stole millions from the parties. This is just one of several instances of JAMS private judges with a huge conflict of interest in the cases they oversee.

A forensic accountant who examined law firm finances determined that Girardi was using his clients’ settlements “like a slush fund.” An audit of Girardi’s financial accounts reportedly showed that he had stolen money from his clients and given it to companies and individuals who had no connection to any of his cases. Even when Girardi claimed that the money was spent on “expert witnesses,” the withdrawals were suspicious. For example, one withdrawal of $450,000 for an expert witness in a case against Lockheed Martin was “confidentially” approved by a JAMS judge.

Erika Jayne

At the time of his deceit involving JAMS, Tom Girardi was married to Erika Jayne, who is best known as one of the stars of the reality show “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” According to one federal judge, Girardi committed multiple crimes when he used his clients’ settlement funds to cover personal expenses for himself and his wife. For example, Bankruptcy Court records indicated that Girardi gave $750,000 to M.M. Jewelers for the purchase of a pair of diamond earrings for his reality TV star wife. He did this shortly after gaining access to the settlement funds, and he reportedly classified the purchase as a case expense. A federal bankruptcy judge, Barry Russell, later said that Girardi’s use of client money to buy expensive jewelry “clearly was a crime” along the lines of theft or embezzlement.

At other times, Girardi took from his clients’ settlement funds to pay himself. Records showed that he would often write several million-dollar checks to his firm in the same week. In one case, Girardi withdrew more than $15 million. Girardi claimed that this money was for his “costs” of representing the plaintiffs, but the amounts and pattern of the withdrawals from the settlement suggested that it was fraud.

JAMS Private Judges Accused of Helping Tom Girardi Cheat Clients

Tom Girardi was able to get away with his deceit because he used private judges affiliated with JAMS. The JAMS private judges have wide latitude and wield substantial power in legal disputes precisely because there is basically zero government oversight of the private arbitration industry. California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye reacted to the revelations about Girardi’s conduct by calling it “shocking.” Cantil-Sakauye commented further on JAMS by observing that there are currently not enough safeguards  to ensure that private judges remain fair and impartial. For instance, the retired judges are not subject to supervision by the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP), an independent California agency tasked with investigating complaints of judicial misconduct.

Many of the JAMS private judges had impeccable reputations prior to joining the arbitration company, which allowed Tom Girardi to establish credibility even as he misappropriated money from his clients. He later used the perceived reputations of the “JAMS Neutrals” to deflect questions about his misconduct. When Girardi’s clients began to suspect that something was amiss with their settlement funds, Girardi actually referenced the private judges’ impressive credentials to justify his unethical actions. According to a Los Angeles Times investigation of Girardi’s fraud, the JAMS arbitrators “occupy a secretive corner of the legal world.” The private arbitration industry is almost entirely unregulated, which exposes parties to significant risks.

JAMS Profited from Tom Girardi’s Lawsuits

Private arbitration is a lucrative industry, and there can be plenty of financial incentives for the JAMS judges, arbitrators, and mediators to rule a certain way. In the aftermath of the revelations about the massive scale of Tom Girardi’s fraud and theft, many questions have been raised about whether the legal system has enough safeguards to protect litigants against predatory attorneys and unethical arbitrators when the JAMS Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service is used. That’s because there can be a conflict of interest for JAMS arbitrators and mediators. This was especially true in Girardi’s cases, which involved Girardi paying the JAMS private judges up to $1,500 an hour.

In one of Girardi’s biggest lawsuits, he represented patients who claimed that a large drug company’s diabetes medication, Rezulin, had caused serious health problems, including liver failure. That case resulted in a $66 million settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs, many of whom desperately needed the money to cover their medical expenses. Girardi convinced the victims to allow a JAMS mediator to oversee the settlement and to supposedly ensure that the funds were distributed in the right amounts and to the right individuals. For this service, JAMS received a $500,000 cut of the proceeds.

What Did JAMS Judges Do to Earn Their Fees?

JAMS also received a $500,000 fee for handling the Lockheed Martin settlement that Girardi secured, an enormous figure that was kept secret from clients. When a bankruptcy court requested a full accounting of exactly what John Trotter and the other JAMS judges had done to earn that fee, the arbitration company refused to provide invoices.

Girardi eventually filed for bankruptcy, which has made it even more difficult for those he had deceived and stolen from to get the money they were owed. Incredibly, one of the companies participating in the bankruptcy proceedings is JAMS, which requested a sum of nearly $10,000 for “an unpaid bill.”

Conflicts of Interest When JAMS Oversees Legal Disputes

In addition to the obvious conflict of interest that exists anytime a company pays a JAMS judge to arbitrate a dispute or oversee a settlement, there were other less obvious conflicts with Tom Girardi. For instance, Girardi reportedly arranged for several JAMS judges to go on a Mediterranean cruise after they ruled in his cases. Although Edward Panelli later claimed that his attendance at the event did not affect his “impartiality as a jurist or neutral,” his actions as a JAMS private judge suggested otherwise.

Carousel Lawsuit

In one high-profile case, Girardi represented 1,500 residents of Carousel, a housing development located just outside Los Angeles. The clients were suing an oil company and a real estate developer allegedly responsible for polluted soil that caused widespread cancer and other health issues. After reaching a settlement with the defendants, Girardi specifically requested that JAMS and John Trotter serve as special master to determine how the funds should be divided among the plaintiffs.

After more than two years, many of the clients still had not been paid. When one of the clients requested information about Girardi’s accounting practices, Girardi once again placed the blame on Trotter and JAMS. When that same client sued Girardi, the attorney insisted that the lawsuit be moved from a courtroom into private arbitration. As usual, Girardi wanted the arbitration handled by JAMS. The perception was likely that a JAMS private judge would show favoritism and rule in Girardi’s favor.

Contact the California Arbitration Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Are you one of the parties in an arbitration being administered by JAMS? Is your case being overseen by a JAMS private judge? The California and Texas arbitration lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Our legal team represents small business owners and individuals in arbitration, mediation, and other types of alternative dispute resolution. We also handle settlement negotiations. Call or email us to schedule a free consultation.

California Comparison Pricing

Comparison Pricing Litigation in California

/in /by

California Comparison Pricing

It has become increasingly common for consumers to bring comparison pricing litigation in California. That’s because the state has some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the country, including laws that regulate unfair competition, false advertising, and deceptive pricing. California’s comparison price law requires retailers to provide accurate pricing information in advertisements, whether the ads appear in print media or online. The law recognizes that consumers should not be tricked into purchasing an item for the regular full price simply because the retailer included a fake sale price in an advertisement or promotion. If this has happened to you, one of the California false advertising lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can help you.

To learn more about comparison pricing litigation in California, keep reading this blog.

Comparison Pricing Is a Retail Sales Strategy That May Violate California False Advertising Laws

Retailers that do business in California and elsewhere often use comparison pricing, reference pricing, strikethrough pricing, or compare-at pricing to persuade customers to make a purchase. All of these basically mean the same thing: the retail company prominently advertises that the item is “on sale,” and they back up this claim with a visual comparison between the current sale price and the original list price.

Comparison pricing is subject to strict regulations because lawmakers recognize that a lot of retailers go too far with deceptive ads that aren’t entirely honest about the former prices. For example, the reference price mentioned in the advertisement or promotion might be from a very long time ago, or it might be for an item that is not the same as the one currently being sold. Since the California comparison pricing law requires businesses to use actual sales prices that are relevant and timely, these types of former pricing representations with deceptive discounts could expose a retailer to consumer litigation.

California Has Strong Consumer Protection Laws

Under both federal and state consumer protection laws, retailers that do business in California cannot use fictitious price comparisons when advertising products. Consumers should also keep in mind that the comparison pricing laws apply to both in-person sales and online sales.

The jurisdiction where a comparison pricing lawsuit is filed can make all the difference when it comes to the outcome of a case. That’s because certain states have very strong consumer protection laws that hold businesses to extremely high standards for advertising, marketing, and sales practices. California has some of the strongest consumer fraud statutes, including §17501 of California’s Business & Professions Code that directly addresses fraudulent marketing and advertising practices.

Comparison Pricing Lawsuits Filed Against Retail Companies in Los Angeles

Failure to comply with California’s law on comparison pricing could expose retailers to significant liability, including a class action lawsuit filed by consumers who purchased products after viewing the misleading advertisement with deceptive sale pricing. Just some of the major retailers that have been sued under California’s false advertising law in recent years include Amazon, The Gap, Guess, J.Crew, Kate Spade & Company, Neiman Marcus Group, Overstock.com, and Walmart.

In California, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office has made a point of going after large retailers that use deceptive pricing in ads to generate sales. The crackdown on false reference pricing prompted the LA City Attorney to bring civil suits against several major department stores that did business in the city, including JCPenney, Kohl’s, Macy’s, and Sears. The retailers were accused of deceptively marketing thousands of items at “sale” prices that did not exist.

California’s False Advertising Law Prohibits Deceptive Prices in Retail Ads

Section 17501 of California’s false advertising law explicitly prohibits advertisements that use a misleading or inaccurate former price.

Actual Prices

The California law stipulates that there must be a legitimate basis for the comparison price cited by the retailer, whether it’s a list price or Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). Businesses are not allowed to create false impressions about discounts by referencing prices that never actually existed just to make the ticket price look like a good deal. The retailer must be prepared to provide proof that the item was previously sold for a higher price. But even that might not be enough for the retailer to avoid retail discount pricing litigation. For example, if the former price was only in effect for a short period of time, the retailer might not be legally allowed to mention this price in an advertisement because there will be serious questions about whether the original compare-at price was legitimate.

Three-Month Time Period

The California law places limits on the comparison prices that retail businesses may mention in an advertisement by explicitly barring them from mentioning an item’s former price unless it was the “prevailing market price” within the three months immediately preceding the ad’s publication.

But what happens when the company’s sale lasts longer than 90 days? In situations like this, California’s promotional pricing guidelines call for the company to revise its advertisement or run the risk of violating the strikethrough pricing statute. That’s because the former price listed in the ad will no longer fall within the 90-day window, which means that it’s no longer valid under the law. In other words, a sales ad that was initially legal will become illegal and could serve as the basis for a consumer to file a lawsuit.

Importantly, California does give retailers an opportunity to revise their ads so that they avoid violating the law. The company can either change the former price in the ad once it becomes outdated or they can “clearly, exactly, and conspicuously” note the date when the former price applied so that the advertisement is not misleading.

Define Relevant Terms

In addition to establishing a three-month timeframe for evaluating the appropriateness of the former price being advertised, the California false advertising statute also attempts to define relevant terms for retailers and consumers. For instance, what does the law mean by “prevailing market price”? This matters because the actual price of the item in question will go a long way toward determining whether the former price was legitimate or false.

Here, there are several factors that must be considered. For instance, what was the actual price of the item at other stores in the same geographical area or region? Also, were any sales made at that price? And, if so, how many units sold? Moreover, were there different prices for the item during the three-month period being evaluated? Since a court can consider any or all of these factors in a strikethrough pricing case, it is important for consumers to speak with a qualified California consumer protection attorney before making any final decisions about how to proceed with their case.

Standing to Sue in California Strikethrough Pricing Claims

It is often easier for plaintiffs to establish that they have standing to sue in a comparison pricing claim brought under California’s false advertising law. Of course, the plaintiffs in a California comparison pricing case must establish that they have standing to sue. In the past, this meant that the plaintiff needed to show that they purchased the item and that they did so at a price higher than they otherwise would have paid. Absent this showing, the door was open for defendants to argue that the plaintiff did not suffer any injury or economic harm because they received exactly what they paid for and therefore got “the benefit of the bargain.”

Things became much easier for plaintiffs when the California Supreme Court ruled in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court that plaintiffs in false advertising cases no longer need to prove that the product they purchased was worth less than the amount paid for it. Now, plaintiffs who bring a comparison pricing claim in California courts merely need to show that they purchased the item because of the deceptive pricing information in the ad; the prevailing market price or MSRP of the item no longer matter.

False Reference Pricing Class Action Lawsuits in California

California false advertising laws regulate companies that do business in the state, including broad protections against sales price misrepresentations. This has led to numerous class action lawsuits being filed on behalf of consumers who have fallen victim to false reference pricing.

It is important for consumers to recognize that they can file a civil suit, or join a consumer class action, even when the retail company does not have a physical brick-and-mortar location in California. As long as the consumer is in California and accessed the business’ website to view the ad or to make a purchase, they may be eligible to bring a Section 17501 claim for false reference pricing.

How Much Money Can Consumers Recover in a California Comparison Pricing Claim?

When a retailer is sued for violating California’s false advertising law, the monetary damages may be substantial. That’s because the statute allows for recovery of actual damages by the plaintiff, as well as the imposition of civil penalties against the defendant. These civil penalties can quickly add up because the defendant can be ordered to pay $2,500 for each violation of the law. Moreover, the court may have the option to impose an additional fine of $2,500 for each violation that injured a senior citizen or a disabled person.

Other California False Advertising Statutes: CCPA, and CLRA, and UCL

One strategy that retail companies might use to get around the California false advertising law is to hide their sales in customer loyalty programs. But this tactic may be a violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which gives consumers another avenue for filing suit against retailers.

Additional legal claims that may be available in comparison pricing cases include violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), especially if the defendant’s conduct involved deceptive language in the advertisement.

The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is another consumer protection statute that applies broadly to a wide range of conduct by companies, including unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Deceptive or false advertising is also prohibited by the statute.

Contact the California False Advertising Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

A lot of retailers use comparison prices in advertisements to encourage consumers to make a purchase while the item is “on sale.” If you bought a retail product because the retailer used deceptive pricing in a store ad or an online ad, you should speak with an experienced Los Angeles consumer protection attorney at Tauler Smith LLP.

Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free initial consultation.