attorney

A group of California trial lawyers is backing a package of bills aimed at policing their industry by ramping up the penalties for attorneys who recruit clients illegally or prioritize the desires of hedge fund investors.

The Consumer Attorneys of California, a prominent trade group, said it is supporting two bills this session meant to crack down on the “small number of bad actors engaged in illegal conduct that threatens to undermine public trust” in the state’s legal bar.

The group said the bills, introduced Monday by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra (D-San José) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), were a response to recent Times investigations involving California lawyers. The Times found nine clients within L.A. County’s $4-billion sex-abuse settlement who said they were paid to sue and, in some cases, fabricate claims that became part of the historic payout. Another story examined opaque investor financing arrangements used by some firms.

“We’re not trying to insulate ourselves from accountability,” said Douglas Saeltzer, president of the attorney group, in an interview. “There needs to be consequences.”

The bill introduced by Zbur would disbar any attorney who is convicted of illegally soliciting clients. Kalra’s bill would ban private equity firms and hedge funds from dictating case strategy after giving money to a law firm.

Plaintiff’s attorneys say the legislative push is an attempt to clean up their profession’s image. It comes amid efforts by companies and governments frequently targeted by lawsuits to rein in a barrage of litigation.

Uber is pushing a measure for the November ballot that would limit how much lawyers can collect in fees for car crash cases, encouraging Californians to “stop the billboard lawyer scam.” A coalition of California counties has simultaneously begun circulating language to lawmakers that would limit attorneys’ ability to sue over older sex-abuse cases, pointing to recent allegations of fraud.

Zbur’s legislation, Assembly Bill 2039, would require the State Bar strip the license of any attorney with a felony conviction for a practice known as capping, in which law firms directly solicit or procure clients to sign up for lawsuits. Currently, attorneys convicted of capping can face suspension or probation, but are eligible to keep their license.

Under the bill, the attorney also would be disbarred for a misdemeanor capping conviction if the lawyer “acted knowingly and for financial gain.”

“It really is making very clear that if you’re engaging in this kind of capping, then there’s going to be a consequence,” Zbur said.

All clients who said they were paid to sue L.A. County over sex abuse were represented by Downtown LA Law Group, one of Southern California’s largest personal injury firms. The firm, also known as DTLA, is under investigation by the district attorney, the State Bar and L.A. County.

DTLA has denied any wrongdoing and said its lawyers “operate with unwavering integrity, prioritizing client welfare.”

Zbur’s bill also would provide whistleblower protections to people who report on attorney misconduct and tighten the rules around client loans. California is one of the few states where lawyers can lend money directly to clients.

Other states have barred the practice, concerned that direct loans give an attorney too much leverage over their clients.

The second bill introduced Monday, AB 2305, is aimed at the rising trend of private equity firms and hedge funds lending money to law firms and profiting from the payouts. The Times reported in December that investors were financing some of the flood of sex-abuse litigation against L.A. County.

Supporters of litigation finance say it gives attorneys the funding they need to take on deep-pocketed corporations and represent victims who can’t afford to sue on their own. Critics say investors can secretly sway case strategy, putting their profit before the best interests of a client.

“These Wall Street investors are salivating,” Kalra said. “This is just gonna clearly say, ‘No, no more. We’re not gonna allow these types of investments to influence the practice of law.’”

Kalra’s bill would bar investors from weighing in on litigation, such as who the firm should take on as a client and when they should settle a case. Any contracts that allow investor influence would be void under the law.

It’s unclear how the restrictions would be enforced. It’s often difficult to tell when an investor is financing a firm’s caseload, much less whether they’re exerting influence on a case.

Lawyers already are barred under the State Bar’s rules from allowing a third party to dictate case strategy and are barred in many cases from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.

“We’re finding that’s not enough,” Kalra said. “We actually need clear statutory safeguards.”

DALLAS — A federal jury Friday convicted nine people — eight on terrorism charges — over a shooting at a Texas immigration facility that federal prosecutors tied to antifa, the decentralized far-left movement that has become a target of the Trump administration.

One person was also found guilty of attempted murder after prosecutors say he opened fire last summer outside the Prairieland Detention Center outside Fort Worth, wounding a police officer. The Justice Department called the violence an attack plotted by antifa operatives, but attorneys for the accused denied that characterization, saying there were no antifa associations and that there was merely a demonstration with fireworks before gunshots broke out.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, an appointee of President Trump, presided over the nearly three-week trial in Fort Worth. It was closely followed by legal experts and critics who called the proceedings a test of the lengths the government can go to punish protesters.

FBI Director Kash Patel had said the case was the first time charges of providing material support to terrorists had targeted people accused of being antifa members.

“Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement.

Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not an organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.

Protesters denied having antifa ties

Defense attorneys told jurors that there was no plan for violence on July 4 outside the facility in Alvarado.

Of the nine defendants on trial, eight faced the charge of providing material support to terrorists, among other charges. The ninth defendant, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was charged with corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents. He was found guilty of both.

Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said he can’t believe jurors “came to this conclusion.” Weinbel said his client had deployed as a member of the U.S. Army several times and he’d hoped what he sacrificed for the country “meant something.”

“But I feel like it turned its back on justice with this. … The U.S. lost today with this verdict,” Weinbel said.

Prosecutor Shawn Smith told jurors during closing arguments that the group’s actions — including bringing firearms and first aid kits and wearing body armor — were all signs of nefarious intent. He said they practiced “antifa tactics” and were “obsessed with operational security.”

Attorneys for the defendants have said that there was no planned ambush and that protesters who brought firearms did so for their own protection — in a state with very lenient gun laws.

A test of 1st Amendment rights

The terrorism charges followed Trump’s order last fall to designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Those charges did not require a tie to any organization, and there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. That’s in part because organizations operating within the United States are protected by broad 1st Amendment rights.

Critics of the Justice Department’s case have said the outcome could have wide-reaching effects on protests.

“That opposition is something that the government wants to squash, so a case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” said Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive legal group.

Trial focused on shots fired

Attorneys for the defendants have said most protesters began leaving when two guards from the center came outside. That was before any shots were fired.

Prosecutors said Benjamin Song, a former Marine Corps reservist, yelled, “Get to the rifles,” and opened fire, striking one police officer who had just pulled up to the center.

Though it was Song who opened fire, prosecutors charged several other protesters with attempted murder of an officer and discharging a firearm, but they were found not guilty. The prosecution had argued that from the group’s planning, it was foreseeable to those others that a shooting could happen.

The officer who was shot, Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, testified that when responding to the scene he saw a person clad in all-black with their face covered and carrying a rifle. He told jurors he was shot with a round that went into his shoulder and out of his neck.

Song’s attorney, Phillip Hayes, told jurors during closing arguments that there wasn’t a call to arms before Gross arrived on the scene and “aggressively” pulled out his firearm. Hayes suggested that Song’s shots were “suppressive fire” and that a ricochet bullet hit the officer.

Leading up to the trial, several people pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists after being accused of supporting antifa. They face up to 15 years in prison at sentencing.

Some of them testified for the prosecution, including Seth Sikes, who said he went to the detention center because he wanted to bring some joy to those held inside.

“I felt like I was doing the right thing,” he said.

Stengle writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, contributed to this report.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called out the federal government for largely vacating its role as antitrust regulator, saying it’s now up to California and other states to look out for consumers’ interests.

Bonta, the state’s top law enforcement officer, spoke Thursday at a Capitol Forum conference in Beverly Hills on antitrust issues and the future of Hollywood. His appearance came just days after the U.S. Department of Justice settled its case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster a week into a high-stakes trial, leaving state attorneys general to try to continue to fight that battle on their own.

The Justice Department’s about-face revealed a major fracture in antitrust enforcement. State attorneys general — particularly in Democratic-controlled states — say their role is becoming increasingly important to challenge alleged anti-competitive behavior.

President Trump has “abdicated the federal administration’s responsibilities to hold big corporations accountable to the law and protect a competitive marketplace,” Bonta said.

Bonta’s appearance comes as another major Hollywood merger appears to be sailing through its federal review with Trump’s tacit approval: Paramount Skydance’s proposed $110-billion deal for Warner Bros. Discovery.

The merger, announced late last month, has rattled Hollywood unions and some antitrust experts. It would combine legendary film studios, robust television production units and two prominent news organizations, CBS News and CNN, as well as dozens of cable channels.

“Paramount and Warner Bros. haven’t cleared regulatory scrutiny,” Bonta said. “My office has an open investigation into [the deal] and we intend to be vigorous in our review.”

California could bring its own lawsuit to block Paramount’s takeover, or join with other state attorney generals to launch legal proceedings to try thwart the deal or extract concessions — even if the Justice Department ultimately clears David Ellison’s deal.

Bonta outlined various concerns, including a continued contraction of Hollywood’s labor market, the consolidation of streaming services — Paramount+, HBO Max, Pluto and Discovery+ — and potentially higher prices and lower wages.

“There’s no industry as iconically California as the entertainment industry,” Bonta said. “It’s baked into California’s DNA.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta vowed to drill into Paramount Skydance’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

Paramount filed for Justice Department approval in December .

The maneuver started the regulatory review clock. And last month a key deadline for the Justice Department to raise concerns about Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner passed without comment from Washington.

Paramount has said it could finalize its deal by the end of September.

The architect of Paramount’s strategy, Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim, delivered his own keynote address, stressing the Ellison-family’s acquisition of Warner Bros. would not reduce competition and instead would be “a huge win for the creative community.”

“Paramount’s transaction with Warners is an opportunity to expand output, to grow the number of movies, shows and other content we are offering to the consumer,” Delrahim said, adding that will result in “more job opportunities,” including in Southern California, which is reeling from a production flight to other states and countries.

Delrahim conceded that Paramount was driven to buy Warner Bros. — it prevailed after Netflix bowed out — because Paramount is not big enough to compete in an industry dominated by technology giants.

He criticized the proposed Netflix deal, saying he doubted it would have passed regulatory muster due to Netflix’s strength in the streaming market.

Paramount still needs to win the support of Warner shareholders, and also gain regulatory approvals from the Justice Department, state attorney generals and overseas governments.

“This deal is a big win for Los Angeles, for California and for all communities that embrace filmmaking,” Delrahim said.

Tech mogul Larry Ellison has personally guaranteed the $45.7-billion in equity needed for the transaction . The company would have to take on more than $60-billion in debt — raising concerns among Hollywood workers about large-scale cost-cuts and layoffs.

“What is Paramount doing is …paying $110 billion to take out a rival,” said attorney Ethan E. Litwin, a former lawyer for TV networks, who also spoke at the conference. “When you take out a major rival in a highly concentrated industry … you are taking out competitors for projects. “

Bonta declined to say whether he would try to stop the Paramount-Warner merger.

Progressive State Leaders Committee, an affiliate of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, in December hired Rohit Chopra, a former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and former commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, as a senior advisor. He will help coordinate efforts as the group, including Bonta, wages antirust enforcement battles.

“The federal government is just not enforcing the law,” Chopra said during Thursday’s conference. “Our states are really the last line of defense.”

MIAMI — Voting technology firm Smartmatic is seeking to dismiss a criminal indictment for money laundering, blaming President Trump and his allies for seeking its prosecution as part of a “campaign of retribution” against those they blame for his 2020 election loss.

Smartmatic’s parent company, UK-based SGO Corporation, was added to a criminal indictment last fall previously charging several executives with paying $1 million in bribes to election officials in the Philippines.

In a motion to dismiss the indictment filed Tuesday, attorneys for Smartmatic said the company had been cooperating with the Justice Department since it first learned of its investigation in 2021, including by producing millions of pages of documents and making presentations to federal agents. A trial date for the executives, including co-founder Roger Pinate, had been set and the company believed that it was in the clear.

But when Trump returned to the White House, the Justice Department reversed course and decided to press charges against Smartmatic. Attorneys for the company said the decision was prompted by Trump’s demands to prosecute his perceived enemies and his “mantra” that Smartmatic helped rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election won by Joe Biden — allegations that are at the heart of a $2.7-billion lawsuit filed by Smartmatic against the president’s allies in the media.

“The prosecution of SGO furthers their collective false narrative that President Trump did not actually lose the 2020 election,” Smartmatic said in the filing in Miami federal court.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Attorneys likened the prosecution to the Justice Department’s targeting of Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, a Salvadoran migrant who was criminally charged for conduct years earlier after he successfully sued the Trump administration over its decision to deport him.

In the years since the election, the filing states, “Smartmatic USA has exercised its right to hold those individuals and entities legally accountable for their deluge of defamatory statements and the attendant damage inflicts on its business, putting it squarely in the crosshairs for retribution.”

The criminal case against Smartmatic and its employees stems from payments, between 2015 and 2018, that were allegedly made to obtain a contract with the Philippine government to help run that country’s 2016 presidential election. Pinate, who no longer works for Smartmatic but remains a shareholder, has pleaded not guilty.

As part of the criminal case, prosecutors in August sought the court’s permission to introduce evidence they argue shows that revenue from a $300-million contract with Los Angeles County to help modernize its voting systems was diverted to a “ slush fund” controlled by Pinate through the use of overseas shell companies, fake invoices and other means.

They also accused Pinate of secretly bribing Venezuela’s longtime election chief by giving her a luxury home with a pool in Caracas. Prosecutors say the home was transferred to the election chief in an attempt to repair relations following Smartmatic’s abrupt exit from Venezuela in 2017 when it accused then-President Nicolas Maduro ’s government of manipulating tallied results in elections for a rubber-stamping constituent assembly.

Smartmatic was founded more than two decades ago by a group of Venezuelans who found early success running elections while the late Hugo Chavez, a devotee of electronic voting, was in power. The company later expanded globally, providing voting machines and other technology to help carry out elections in 25 countries, from Argentina to Zambia.

But Smartmatic has said its business tanked after Fox News gave Trump’s lawyers a platform to paint the company as part of a conspiracy to steal the 2020 election.

Fox said it was legitimately reporting on newsworthy events but eventually aired a piece refuting the allegations after Smartmatic’s lawyers complained. Nonetheless, it has aggressively defended itself against the defamation lawsuit in New York — arguing that the company was facing imminent collapse over its own internal misconduct, not due to any negative coverage.

Goodman writes for the Associated Press.

The California State Bar has charged a founding partner of Downtown LA Law Group, a law firm at the center of a scandal that has embroiled Los Angeles County’s historic sex abuse settlement, with signing up dozens of clients in states where none of the firm’s lawyers were licensed to practice.

The bar charged Salar Hendizadeh, who left the firm this fall, on March 5 with helping one of Southern California’s largest personal injury law firms sign accident victims across the country, despite lacking attorneys who could litigate the cases in other states. Hendizadeh was charged with eleven counts, including deceptive advertising and charging illegal fees.

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement the allegations, if proved, “represent dishonest and illegal conduct.”

Hendizadeh and a spokesperson for Downtown LA Law Group did not provide a comment Monday.

The firm had roughly 40 clients in Texas, where it operated under the name “Lone Star Injury Law Firm” and branded itself “Texas’s #1 Injury Law Firm,” according to the complaint.

The firm had one L.A.-based attorney licensed to practice in Texas, Darren McBratney, but he left the firm in early 2022. The bar claims the firm refused to remove the attorney’s name from its website for years, ignoring a cease and desist letter from McBratney’s new employer.

Typically, attorneys can take cases in states where they’re not licensed, but they need to partner with local counsel or get permission from the court. In many cases, the bar alleged, DTLA made no effort to do so and left their out-of-state clients in the lurch.

The firm told a Maryland car crash victim her case was worth $1 million and encouraged her to see a California spinal surgeon who charged roughly $300,000 for surgery, according to the complaint. She fired the firm after she got a settlement offer of $160,000 — not enough, she believed, to cover her medical fees, the complaint said.

Attorneys signed up a Tennessee client who was injured at a Nashville rental car business, but the one-year statute of limitations ran out before they filed the case, the bar complaint said. The firm offered to pay for all of his medical bills and one year of physical therapy “as a form of restitution,” according to the complaint.

The charges come as DTLA faces another pending investigation from the State Bar in connection with thousands of sexual abuse lawsuits the firm filed against Los Angeles County, along with a probe from the district attorney’s office. Both have said they are looking into allegations surfaced by The Times last fall that DTLA paid clients to file claims, some of which were allegedly fabricated, that became part of a $4-billion settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history. The firm has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing.

The firm was founded by three longtime friends: Daniel Azizi and Farid Yaghoubtil, who are cousins, and Hendizadeh, a friend from elementary school. They began working together in August 2013, the month Hendizadeh got his California bar license, according to the complaint.

The bar complaint charges only Hendizadeh, though it also mentions Yaghoubtil, who shared the responsibility for marketing and client intake, according to the complaint.

The bar says Yaghoubtil repeatedly asked for a referral fee from a woman injured in a Michigan drugstore after she dropped the firm for allegedly taking too long to file her lawsuit. The client had to find her own attorney, the bar said, eliminating the need for a referral fee.

“Why would you tell the lawyers to not pay us a referral fee? That makes no sense.” Yaghoubtil texted the woman on Aug. 16, 2022. “But why not let us get the referral fee? Very sad. Have a nice night.”

The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles routinely sues the city — and wins.

In the last two months, the nonprofit has notched victories in three lawsuits over the city’s handling of the homelessness crisis.

Legal Aid also defends tenants at risk of eviction as part of the city and Los Angeles County’s Stay Housed L.A. program.

Last Tuesday, the City Council was set to vote on a $177-million contract for Legal Aid to continue representing tenants for the next three years, with other groups providing related services.

But the night before the vote, City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto sent a confidential memo to council offices recommending that council members “reconsider the award of such a large contract to a frequent litigant against the city,” according to a portion of the memo obtained by The Times.

On the day of the scheduled vote, the council delayed it for a week, until Tuesday.

“[Legal Aid’s] mission includes improving the lives of our client communities through systemic change, which sometimes means filing litigation against government entities engaging in illegal conduct,” Barbara Schultz, director of housing justice for Legal Aid, said in an interview.

Schultz said that Legal Aid’s litigation and eviction work “are entirely separate.”

Through a spokesperson, Feldstein Soto declined to comment. She is running for reelection this year.

The contract, which would last for three years, would award nearly $107 million to Legal Aid for eviction defense and prevention, $42 million to the Southern California Housing Rights Center for short-term emergency rental assistance, nearly $22 million to Liberty Hill Foundation for tenant outreach and close to $7 million to Strategic Actions for a Just Economy to protect tenants from harassment.

The battle over the contract has serious implications for Los Angeles tenants at risk of eviction, Schultz said.

Legal Aid, which has participated in the program since its inception in 2021, will have to stop accepting new clients if the contract does not pass on Tuesday. Each month, about 160 tenants will be without legal representation and about 575 more won’t get advice that could help them avoid eviction proceedings, Schultz said.

Schultz said that Legal Aid subcontracts some of the legal work in the program to groups such as Bet Tzedek and Inner City Law Center.

“We get 600 to 800 eviction filings each month in our district alone. If council doesn’t act, those families will have no help from the city,” City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez said in a statement.

The Stay Housed L.A. program has opened about 26,000 cases overall, providing full representation for 6,150 cases and working on nearly 20,000 “limited scope” cases, according to data from Legal Aid. The original contract, which is set to lapse at the end of the month, was for about $90 million.

Measure ULA, the “mansion tax” passed by city voters in 2022, includes funding for the program.

Last June, Feldstein Soto tried to block the City Council from extending the contract without a competitive bidding process, a core tenet she has preached as the city’s elected legal counsel.

At the time, some City Council members grumbled, but still, they opened the contract to bidders.

Months later, the city Housing Department awarded the contract to Legal Aid and the other organizations before sending it to the City Council for approval.

“Our understanding of the city’s contracting process is that it is trying to get the best services it can at the best value and not using the process to influence the political or legal activities of nonprofit advocacy organizations,” Elizabeth Hamilton, deputy director of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, which has also filed lawsuits against the city, said in a statement.

Feldstein Soto’s confidential memo cited other potential issues with the contract, calling for an audit of Stay Housed L.A. and asserting that a confidentiality clause in the original contract might violate state public records laws.

Recently, Legal Aid has scored several victories against the city.

In January, a judge ruled that the city violated the state’s open meeting law when council members made a plan behind closed doors to sweep 9,800 homeless encampments. Legal Aid represented the plaintiffs in that case.

In February, with Legal Aid also serving as plaintiffs’ counsel, a judge ruled that the city lacked the legal authority to carry out a state law allowing the dismantling of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000.

That same month, Legal Aid scored another victory when a federal judge found that the city violated homeless people’s constitutional rights by seizing and destroying their property during encampment cleanups.

AUSTIN, Tex. — The lobby walls of the Driskill Hotel are hung with the portraits of figures of Texas political lore, men like Sam Houston and William B. Travis of Alamo fame. But on a rainy evening, a rather demure-looking woman in a conservative black suit and tidy tucked hairdo is the center of attention.

First, Texas Democratic Party chairman Bob Slagle comes up to hug and say hello. They chat briefly about how well things are going in the presidential campaign.

Then two young women walk by, one whispering to the other, “Is that Sarah Weddington?” They turn back and stop to introduce themselves. As the two say goodby, one adds: “Of course, it goes without saying how much I admire you.”

Weddington is used to this by now. The 46-year-old lawyer gained fame from her first case, Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1972 Supreme Court decision.

Since then, Weddington has spent almost two decades advocating abortion rights. Today, she has been in her adopted hometown of Austin signing copies of her new book, “A Question of Choice: The Lawyer Who Won Roe v. Wade,” for a parade of admirers. Longtime friends presented many of the almost 500 copies she signs; young women like the two who paused to thank her offered others.

Weddington stood for more than five hours at a podium, first at a university bookstore and later in the hotel ballroom, signing in a consistently elegant hand. Everyone is greeted with a smile, some with hugs. An aura of restraint surrounds her, an almost Victorian quality in a woman some see as a sort of virago, a demon of the left who has led the charge for legalized abortion.

Some friends describe her as “ladylike”; almost all say she is very private.

And yet her book begins with a revelation that she had kept a very personal secret. In 1967, while a young, unmarried law student at the University of Texas, this daughter of a minister and graduate of a small Methodist college, traveled to “a dirty Mexican border town to have an abortion, fleeing the law that made abortion illegal in Texas.”

She was accompanied by her then-boyfriend and later husband, fellow law student Ron Weddington. Divorced amicably in 1974, they kept the secret until the publication of the book. “I am a very private person and would never have talked about this if I hadn’t felt that I wanted to do everything I could to help win it again. That I can’t win it in the courts, nobody can. That’s where we have to win is at the ballot box. And it was like I had to give it everything I had and it was the one thing I had never given. . . .

“My own thoughts about it are that if I had to write a caption it would be ‘giving up privacy in order to save it.’ I feel like I’m giving something very precious up and that is the ability to live my life in privacy. . . . We always had an agreement not to talk about this without talking to the other, and he (her former husband) always observed it.”

Journalist Linda Ellerbee, a friend and fellow Texan, suggested that Weddington humanize her book to make it more accessible to readers. The first draft, Weddington acknowledges, was long and perhaps too legalistic: “First, I wanted to write the perfect book, and I couldn’t write that book. Then someone said, ‘Why don’t you practice writing the book,’ and I could do that because I was freeing myself.”

Weddington admits that a more likely publication date would have been 1993, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. But in the last few years, it became increasingly obvious to her that the landmark decision was in jeopardy: “In the book, I say if anybody had said to me in 1969 or 1973, ‘You will still be talking about this in 1992,’ I would have thought they were crazy.”

As president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, she had witnessed the first skirmishes of what she calls a war of attrition during the early years of the Reagan presidency. But at that point, she says, “We still had the trump card, the Supreme Court.”

Reagan, who she notes signed California’s liberal 1967 abortion law, then began to make conservative appointments to the high court. And at that point, Weddington says, “I began to say I was for mandatory life support systems for older justices.”

The 1989, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services decision was the real turning point, she says, and now she sees the battle lines on three fronts: the Supreme Court, the Congress, which is considering the Freedom of Choice Bill, and state legislatures.

Her book’s publication, just two months before the fall election, is no accident. President Bush, she says, made “a pact with the radical right” in 1988, and abortion-rights advocates cannot risk more of his court appointments: “The sands of time ran out when Clarence Thomas was confirmed.”

Weddington says Bill Clinton would sign the Freedom of Choice Act. But even a Clinton victory will not persuade her to sit back and say the fight is over. The Arkansas governor has supported some restrictions, as Weddington describes them, particularly regarding abortions for minors. “We are trying to educate him; it’s not a natural,” she says. “I don’t think you can elect Clinton and say, ‘Well, let’s forget about that.’ ”

For this activist lawyer, who drew her strength from the women’s movement in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, the fight is not over on other fronts, either. She sees a need to engage the younger generation and to remind Americans why Roe was so important.

“Intellectually, they believe that choice should be available, but emotionally, they have never known what it was like for it not to be,” Weddington says of younger Americans. “You can’t expect them to have the same emotional memories and commitments, and yet I don’t think you can preach to them.”

The book’s final section is a call to arms, a detailed plan for action that gives Roe defenders a game plan. Weddington expects the fight to continue well into the next century and plans to continue the battle.

“I think this issue is so basic you can’t desert it, and while it’s in trouble, you’ve got to keep plugging,” she says. “I see a new group of people who haven’t been as active, but I think they will be more comfortable with a broader focus.” That focus, she says, should include family issues and support for birth control programs.

*

In one sense, Weddington admits, her career peaked at age 27 when she stood before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued her case for a woman’s right to choose. But the legal fight that began at a garage sale fund-raiser in 1969 and culminated in Roe–and her subsequent service as a special assistant on women’s issues in the Carter White House–was heady stuff for a young woman from Abilene.

She also served as one of the first women in the Texas House of Representatives (1973-1977) and was frequently mentioned as a candidate for statewide office, long before Ann Richards, her former legislative aide, won the governor’s race. Privately, a few friends admit that the stellar political career has passed Weddington by.

Elective office is not likely at this point. “I have a question whether the price is worth it,” she says. “There’s no money, and everybody is in a sour mood. When I ran, I ran to do something, and right now I don’t see that you can do that much. . . .”

For her beliefs, Weddington has paid a high personal price. She is dogged by activists opposed to abortion. At the Austin bookstore signing, several security guards were on hand.

But Roe v. Wade has also given Weddington opportunities to spread her message. For several years, she and Phyllis Schafly toured on a sort of abortion cross-fire show. Apart from not sharing the same views, they never even shared the same car. “We once tried to find something to talk about, and the only thing we agreed on was airplane coffee was usually bad,” Weddington says.

Now, Weddington plans to continue to teach part time at the University of Texas, speak around the country and ready herself for the barrage of publicity next year on the 20th anniversary of Roe. Should Clinton be elected, she would not mind serving as an adviser, but she would not want to have a full-time position in Washington. And she would like to write another book or two.

Not the least of her contributions is the impact Weddington has had on young people, particularly women. Time after time, during her Austin book signing, women in their 20s approach her, say that they had heard her speak before and tell her that she has changed their lives.

And at the last minute, three young women dash in from the rain and ask Weddington to sign their books. All three are recent graduates of the University of Texas law school and all three are Texas Supreme Court clerks. When Weddington asks how many women are in their law class, they say about 150.

Weddington smiles and says there were five when she graduated 24 years ago.

Caracas, February 27, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez announced on Wednesday that he had received the resignations of Attorney General Tarek William Saab and Ombudsman Alfredo Ruiz. 

Both officials had been ratified in their positions in October 2024 for a seven-year term extending through 2031. Rodríguez did not specify the motives expressed by Saab and Ruiz in their resignation letters.

Following the officials’ departure, lawmakers declared a parliamentary urgency and appointed a 13-member committee tasked with selecting candidates and appointing new figures to both posts within 30 days.

In the interim, at Rodríguez’s proposal, the Venezuelan parliament appointed Saab as acting ombudsman, while naming Larry Devoe—formerly executive secretary of the National Human Rights Council—as acting attorney general.

Under normal legal procedure, Saab’s post would be temporarily filled by the deputy attorney general. However, Rodríguez explained that the position is currently vacant, requiring parliament to adopt extraordinary measures.

A lawyer by training, Tarek William Saab was part of the legal defense team for Hugo Chávez following the 1992 civil-military uprising and later represented relatives of leftist militants and guerrillas who were tortured or disappeared during the Fourth Republic period. He served as ombudsman from 2014 to 2017, when the National Constituent Assembly appointed him attorney general after the removal of his controversial predecessor Luisa Ortega Díaz.

As the country’s top prosecutor, Saab took charge of several high-profile cases, including the arrest of former Oil Minister Tareck El Aissami. Saab likewise headed Venezuela’s relations with the International Criminal Court, accusing the tribunal of “lawfare” in its investigation of human rights abuses committed by Venezuelan authorities.

Alfredo Ruiz, a professor and founding member of the social organization Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz (Support Network for Justice and Peace), had served as ombudsman since 2017.

Larry Devoe is a lawyer specializing in criminal and criminological sciences. He previously held several positions within the Ombudsman’s Office and was appointed executive secretary of the National Human Rights Council in 2014. He is currently a member of the Peace and Coexistence Program established in January by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.

Following the temporary appointments, opposition lawmaker Henrique Capriles described Saab’s designation as acting ombudsman as “an insult to victims.”

Speaking to reporters after the legislative session, Capriles accused Saab of being “responsible for persecution and criminalization” in Venezuela and criticized his new role. 

“It is an insult to victims, to those of us who expect that public powers in this country will change—that there will be institutions serving the interests of Venezuelans and not the government,” he said.

Regarding Devoe, Capriles argued that he is “someone close to the ruling party,” adding that the country “needs a truly independent attorney general and ombudsman.”

Parliamentary commission processes amnesty requests

The resignations come amid the implementation of an Amnesty Law that has facilitated the release of detainees accused or convicted of political violence dating back to 1999. The legislation covers 13 specific periods between January 1, 1999, and 2026, mostly related to “protests and violent events.”

Jorge Arreaza, head of the National Assembly’s Special Commission for the Development and Implementation of the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence, reported on Friday that 8,110 individuals have filed petitions for amnesty since the law’s approval last week.

According to the Socialist Party deputy, 223 individuals previously in prison have been released, while 4,534 people subject to parole-type measures—such as mandatory court appearances or house arrest—have been fully cleared.

Far-right politicians Freddy Superlano and Juan Pablo Guanipa, both accused by authorities of terrorism and criminal conspiracy, were among those released in recent days.

In total, 4,757 individuals have benefited from the law to date, according to Venezuelan officials. Arreaza added that Venezuela’s justice system remains on permanent alert to expedite procedures for cases that qualify for amnesty.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

A woman who was mauled by a dog at a Los Angeles city animal shelter has been awarded $5.4 million by a jury.

Genice Horta, 51, said that neither the shelter nor the rescue group she worked for told her the dog, a Belgian Malinois named Maximus, had bitten a teenager and a shelter employee, sending both to the hospital.

After six surgeries to repair the bones and nerves in her right arm, Horta was left with permanent damage, according to a brief by her attorneys in the lawsuit she filed in 2022.

After a 10-day trial, the L.A. County Superior Court jury decided last week that the city was 62.5% liable, the rescue group was 25% liable and Horta was 12.5% liable for medical expenses and pain and suffering.

It was the third multi-million payout in recent years involving allegations that the city animal shelters failed to notify potential adopters that a dog had bitten and seriously injured someone, as required by state law.

Horta’s case “revealed a series of serious and preventable mistakes made with respect to warning about Maximus’ bite history and adopting out and failing to control a dangerous dog,” one of her attorneys, Ivan Puchalt, said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the L.A. City Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.

Agnes Sibal-von Debschitz, communications director for LA Animal Services, said in statement that according to department policy, “staff must provide a bite and behavioral disclosure to any person receiving an animal with a prior bite history.”

The policy was formally enacted last November in response to a $3.25-million settlement reached by the city with Kristin Wright, who was severely injured by a pit bull she adopted from the South L.A. shelter. Wright said the shelter didn’t inform her that the dog had bitten his previous owner’s elderly mother in the face.

The rescue group, HIT Living Foundation, did not respond to a request for comment.

HIT Living Foundation hired Horta to drive Maximus from the East Valley Animal Shelter to Arizona. She had no prior experience with shelter dogs, according to the city’s attorneys.

On Sept. 23, 2020, after a shelter employee told Horta that Maximus had “kennel anxiety,” she offered the dog a treat containing trazodone, a common anxiety medication for dogs, according to an amended complaint by Horta’s attorneys.

Maximus took the treat, then lunged and latched onto Horta’s right hand and arm. A fuzzy video of the attack was played in court during the trial.

Horta alleged that the shelter employee who brought Maximus to her car negligently failed to control him and never told her the dog could be dangerous. During the attack, the employee was gripping a metal pole with a cable looped around Maximus’ neck.

The employee, Jose Humildad, testified that he told Horta not to approach Maximus with the treat.

Maximus’ previous owners surrendered him to the shelter after he bit their 15-year-old daughter on the foot, leaving deep puncture wounds and requiring hospital treatment, according to the brief by Horta’s attorneys, and several weeks later, Maximus bit a shelter employee who went to the emergency room for a severe bite to the abdomen.

Horta said she never was told of the attacks, which made Maximus unsuitable for public adoption, and he was placed on the city’s New Hope list, which is accessible to registered nonprofit rescues.

Shelter employees had documented Maximus “viciously biting and snapping at people walking past his enclosure,” according to the brief by Horta’s attorneys. One employee wrote “USE EXTREME CAUTION!!!”

Horta’s attorneys argued that Maximus was so dangerous that he should have been euthanized.

The city pushed back on that interpretation.

L.A. animal shelters are not “death row in Mississippi at midnight,” Deputy City Atty. Joshua Quinones said in his closing argument Thursday afternoon. “This is a rescue operation.”

Quinones also argued that Maximus already had been sold to HIT Living Foundation when he bit Horta.

Trying to find Maximus a home, animal rescuers posted repeatedly on Instagram days before the 1-year-old dog bit Horta, describing him as a “handsome misunderstood pup” and a “young troublemaker” in danger of being euthanized.

The post said Maximus had a bite history but provided no details.

SACRAMENTO — The head of California’s High-Speed Rail Authority took a voluntary leave Tuesday after news reports circulated about his recent arrest on suspicion of domestic battery against a spouse.

Ian Choudri was arrested Feb. 4 at his Folsom home in the 500 block of Borges Court.

The rail authority said in a statement Tuesday that Choudri agreed to take a temporary leave to allow its board of directors and the California State Transportation Agency to review and assess the situation.

Choudri’s attorney said Monday that the Sacramento County district attorney’s office declined to file charges in the case. Police were called to Choudri’s home by a third party, Choudri’s attorney told The Times.

“This matter is over and no further action will be taken,” said Allen Sawyer, who is representing Choudri.

The district attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Choudri is among the highest-paid state employees in California, having earned $563,000 last year, according to payroll records obtained by The Times from the state controller’s office.

The High-Speed Rail Authority did not answer a question about whether Choudri would receive pay during his absence.

The board of directors is scheduled to meet next on March 4.

The day before his arrest, Choudri had appeared with Gov. Gavin Newsom in Kern County to announce the completion of a 150-acre facility that would serve as a hub for construction of the high-speed rail project in the San Joaquin Valley.

California’s grand vision for a bullet train, originally to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles, has become a flash point in national politics.

President Trump and Republicans have seized on the billions of dollars in cost overruns and slow progress to cast the project as a Democratic boondoggle and waste of taxpayer money.

Newsom, eager to show some advancement before he leaves office, has refocused construction on building a segment from Merced to Bakersfield. His office said earlier this month that 119 miles were under construction and 58 structures, including bridges, overpasses and viaducts, have been completed.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Board of Directors approved Choudri as chief executive in August 2024. Newsom praised the decision and commended his more than 30 years of experience in the transportation sector.

Choudri replaced former CEO Brian Kelly, who retired. Choudri joined the agency from HNTB Corp., an infrastructure design firm where he previously held the position of senior vice president.

Choudri did not respond to requests for comment. Newsom’s office directed questions to the High-Speed Rail Authority.

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Human rights experts from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner expressed concern about the possible link between Guatemala’s attorney general, Consuelo Porras, and alleged illegal adoptions of disappeared Indigenous children.

According to investigators, led by Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite, the adoptions would have occurred between 1968 and 1996 during Guatemala’s armed conflict — a period marked by human rights violations that particularly affected Indigenous communities.

The allegations refer particularly to 1982, when Porras headed the Elisa Martínez Temporary Home and allegedly acted as the “legal guardian” of minors who were later placed in irregular international adoptions.

“We are particularly concerned that a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation has not been carried out into the alleged involvement of certain state authorities in these processes and that the mothers affected by these illegal adoptions have apparently received neither recognition nor adequate reparations,” the U.N. experts said in a statement.

The Elisa Martínez Home operated as a center under the Directorate of Child and Family Welfare with the authority to oversee national and international adoptions.

Once children entered the home, the director or person in charge became their legal guardian, allowing them to process adoption proceedings in Guatemala and abroad under the adoption regulations in force at the time, Prensa Libre reported.

The controversy arose as Porras sought to become a magistrate of the Constitutional Court, the country’s highest court, once her term at the Public Ministry ends in May.

According to analysts, the attorney general was seeking refuge in the high court to obtain the protection granted by immunity, and submitted her candidacy to the Superior University Council of the University of San Carlos of Guatemala, digital outlet LaHora.gt reported.

However, after the report was made public, the university excluded her from the list of candidates for the court, determining that she did not meet the requirements of suitability and integrity.

The Public Ministry reacted strongly to the U.N. report. In an official statement, it described the allegations as “spurious, malicious and biased,” arguing they are based on unverified information intended to interfere in the country’s sovereign processes.

In a post on X, Porras rejected the accusations against her as “false and politically instrumentalized.” She said they lack evidentiary support and “are completely malicious, and far from protecting human rights, they violate and distort them.”

Porras’ defense maintains that her role at the Elisa Martínez Temporary Home was administrative and that she had no legal authority over the final destination of the minors. The attorney general also announced she is weighing legal action against the U.N. experts, arguing that her presumption of innocence has been violated.

While the experts insist on the need for independent and thorough investigations, Porras maintains that she is facing “international political persecution” aimed at weakening her position at the head of the Public Ministry.

Consuelo Porras was appointed in 2018 and ratified in 2022 as attorney general and head of Guatemala’s Public Ministry. Although her mandate is focused on criminal prosecution, her tenure has been internationally questioned and sanctioned by more than 40 countries, including the United States and the European Union, over allegations of corruption and undermining democracy.

Porras has been accused of using the justice system as a political weapon to protect corruption networks and pursue independent prosecutors, judges and journalists, triggering repeated citizen protests that demand her resignation.

After the election of President Bernardo Arévalo in 2023, the Public Ministry under Porras initiated a series of legal actions to attempt to annul the election results and cancel the ruling party, Semilla.

Since Arévalo took office, the relationship between him and Porras has been marked by constant confrontation.

Arévalo has sought legal mechanisms and legislative reforms to remove her, while Porras has refused to attend Cabinet summonses and has kept multiple investigations open against the president’s inner circle, generating institutional paralysis and a deep political crisis in the country.

Ian Choudri, the CEO of California’s High-Speed Rail Authority, was arrested on suspicion of domestic battery earlier this month at his Folsom home, officials said.

The 57-year-old was arrested Feb. 4 on suspicion of battery against a spouse, Sgt. John Triplett of the Folsom police confirmed. The arrest occurred in the 500 block of Borges Court, where records indicate he owns a home.

“The High-Speed Rail Authority is aware of the matter and is reviewing it,” a spokesperson for the agency said Monday in a statement. “We have no other comment at this time.”

Choudri was approved as CEO of the state agency in August 2024, and lauded by Gov. Gavin Newsom as having more than 30 years’ experience in the transportation sector.

Choudri replaced former CEO Brian Kelly, who retired. Choudri joined the agency from HNTB Corp., an infrastructure design firm where he previously held the position of senior vice president.

Choudri did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.

Choudri’s attorney told The Times that police were called to Choudri’s home by a third-party and that prosecutors did not file charges in the case.

Choudri was set to appear in court Feb. 6 but was notified by the Sacramento district attorney’s office that they had declined to file charges, said Allen Sawyer, Choudri’s attorney.

“This matter is over and no further action will be taken,” Sawyer said.

Officials at the Sacramento district attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The day before his arrest, Choudri had appeared with Newsom in Kern County to announce the completion of a 150-acre facility that would serve as a hub for construction of the high-speed rail project in San Joaquin Valley.

“The railhead facility is a critical step in the track-installation process and keeps us on pace to deliver this system smarter, faster and more economically,” Choudri announced at the media event, according to a statement released by Newsom’s office.

Newsom’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Choudri is among the highest-paid state employees in California, having earned $563,000 last year, according to payroll records obtained by The Times from the state controller’s office.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this story.