client

L.A. County is bringing on a retired judge to tackle a $4-billion question: How can officials ensure that real victims are compensated from the biggest sex abuse payout in U.S. history — and not people who made up their claims?

The county has tapped Daniel Buckley, a former presiding judge of the county’s Superior Court, to vet cases brought by Downtown LA Law Group after The Times found nine people represented by the firm who said they were paid to sue the county by recruiters. Four of the plaintiffs said they were told to fabricate the claims.

Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, has denied paying any of its roughly 2,700 clients, but agreed to cover the cost of Buckley to examine their cases in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement.

In a letter sent to clients Monday, Andrew Morrow, the lead attorney in the firm’s sex abuse cases, noted there are “additional safeguards” and “vetting protocols” underway following recent reports of paid clients, but did not specifically mention the new judge.

“While we categorically deny this ever occurred, we take these matters seriously and welcome the implementation of additional review procedures to ensure false claims do not move forward in the process,” wrote Morrow, the chairman of the firm’s mass torts department.

On Oct. 17, Dawyn Harrison, the top attorney for the county, requested an investigation from the State Bar based on The Times’ reporting, saying she believed some of the settlement would flow to “the pockets of the plaintiffs’ bar” rather than victims.

“The actions described in the article, if true, are despicable and run afoul of ethical duties of attorneys and criminal law in California,” Harrison wrote in a letter to Erika Doherty, the bar’s interim executive director. “I request the State Bar investigate all of the potential fraudulent and illegal activities described in this letter.”

DTLA declined to comment last week. The firm has previously said it works “hard to present only meritorious claims and have systems in place to help weed out false or exaggerated allegations.”

The bulk of the claims will be reviewed by retired Superior Court Judge Louis Meisinger, who will decide awards between $100,000 and $3 million.

The amount will depend on the severity of the abuse, the impact on the victim’s life and the amount of evidence provided, according to the allocation protocol. The money will be paid out over five years unless the victim opts to get a one-time check for $150,000.

If the judges find cases they believe are fraudulent, the county can either resolve them through a $50,000 payment or get them removed from the settlement. The county saves money in that case, but runs the risk of the plaintiff continuing to litigate and landing a larger payout from a jury trial.

It’s unusual — but not unheard of — for a neutral arbiter to be appointed to investigate cases from a specific firm in a massive settlement.

Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Barbara Houser, who is overseeing the $2.4-billion trust for victims of the Boy Scouts of Americas sex abuse cases, said last month that she had asked for an “independent third party” to vet the claims brought by Slater Slater Schulman after finding a pattern of “irregularities” and “procedural and factual problems” among its plaintiffs.

Slater Slater Schulman, headquartered in New York City, represents roughly 14,000 victims in the Boy Scouts case. It also represents roughly 3,700 people in the L.A. County settlement — the most of any firm, by far.

On Oct. 14, Lawrence Friedman, a former Department of Justice attorney who headed up the federal watchdog office for the bankruptcy system, spearheaded a blistering motion asking Houser to reduce Slater’s attorneys fees, which he estimated were at least $20 million. Friedman is seeking to push them out of the case, alleging the firm had “run amok” and “dangled the prospect of lottery sized payouts” in front of clients without vetting them.

“The SLATER law firm has little if any quality controls in place to validate the information in the 14,600 claims other than validating that they were real people who had filed the claim,” the motion stated. “…What SLATER has effectively created is simply a ‘Claims Machine’ designed to spit out huge wads of cash for itself!”

Clifford Robert, an outside attorney who is representing Slater Slater Schulman in its issues with the Boy Scouts cases, said the firm’s priority “has been and always will be securing justice on behalf of sexual abuse victims.”

Friedman, who has been outspoken about misconduct by mass tort attorneys in bankruptcy cases, said he now represents dozens of former Slater plaintiffs. The ex-clients alleged the firm waited more than a year before informing them their cases were undergoing additional vetting and their payments would be delayed. The firm told them this September about the outside investigation, which began in June 2024, according to an email attached to the Oct. 14 motion.

“We now agree that there are procedural and factual problems in some of our claim submissions to the Trust,” the three partners of Slater Slater Schulman wrote in a joint email to clients on Sept. 9. “Because of the problematic claims, we have agreed that all of our claim submissions to the Trust be vetted by an independent third party.”

Both judges who will vet the L.A. County sex abuse payouts work for Signature Resolution, a firm that specializes in resolving legal disputes outside the courtroom with a heavyweight roster of former judges and lawyers. Litigation management company BrownGreer will be the settlement administration arm, responsible for making sure the checks go out, liens are settled and the judges have the records they need from the 11,000 plaintiffs.

An additional 414 sex abuse claims that led to a separate $828-million settlement announced Oct. 17 will be reviewed by a different judge with the money distributed over the course of three years. That settlement, which involves claims from three firms that opted to litigate separately from the rest, is expected to receive final approval from the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

The county will give the first tranche of money to the fund administered by BrownGreer in January, though it’s unclear when that money will trickle down to victims. The additional fraud review could slow the process as the judges will need to decide what all 11,000 of the claims are worth before any of the money goes out.

“They should have had their duck in the rows at the beginning,” said Tammy Rogers, 56, who sued over sex abuse at a county-run shelter for children in 2022.

Rogers said she has seen her bank account depleted recently following a shoulder surgery and her daughter’s funeral. She said she’s grown skeptical the settlement money will come her way anytime soon after reading the recent coverage of plaintiffs who say they were paid to sue.

“They should have known people were going to come out of the woodwork and do stuff like this,” she said. “They should have taken this time in the beginning, not in the end.”

Tammy Rogers, one of the plaintiffs who sued L.A. County over alleged abuse at MacLaren Hall, says she’s worried the extra vetting may delay payments to victims.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

The number of claims has fluctuated in recent months as some of the firms have dismissed cases from plaintiffs who died, lost interest in their lawsuit, or stopped responding. Since the Times initial investigation ran on Oct. 2, DTLA has asked for the dismissal of at least 14 plaintiffs, according to a Times analysis of court records.

On Oct. 17, the firm asked a judge to dismiss three people in a 63-plaintiff lawsuit filed April 29 who told The Times they’d been paid to sue the county for sex abuse.

Quantavia Smith, whose case DTLA asked to be dismissed without prejudice, previously told The Times a recruiter paid her to join the litigation, but said she had a legitimate sex abuse claim against the county. She said the recruiter drove her to the office of a downtown law firm and then gave her $200.

The firm also asked to dismiss the cases of Nevada Barker and Austin Beagle with prejudice, meaning the cases can’t be refilled. The Times reported this month that the Texan couple were told to make up allegations of abuse at a county-run juvenile hall and provided a script by someone inside the firm’s downtown office. Both said they left the firm with $100.

The Times could not reach the alleged recruiter for comment.

Austin Beagle and Nevada Barker say they were unwittingly ushered into a fraudulent lawsuit against L.A. County filed by Downtown LA Law Group.

(Joe Garcia/For The Times)

On the morning the story published Oct. 16, Beagle and Barker each received an automated email from Vinesign, a legal e-signature site, telling them Downtown LA Law was requesting their signature on a document.

“I wish to affirm my claim that I was sexually abused in a Los Angeles County juvenile facility, and I was never paid to bring this claim forward,” stated the DTLA declaration, which they were asked to sign under the penalty of perjury.

Both said they did not want to sign as it was not true — and the opposite of what had just been published that morning in The Times. Beagle said the firm called twice that morning to discuss.

“We told them just dismiss it,” said Beagle. “We ain’t talking about it.”

Times assistant data and graphics editor Sean Greene contributed to this report.

After 12 years on the Los Angeles City Council, Curren Price will be term-limited out of the legislative body this coming year.

The candidate he hopes will replace him comes from his staff, his deputy chief of staff, Jose Ugarte, who has been referred to in the past as Price’s “right-hand man.”

But with many months to go before ballots are cast, Ugarte is already in hot water with the city’s Ethics Commission.

According to documents released by the commission, Ugarte has agreed to pay a $17,500 fine for repeatedly failing to disclose outside income he made from his lobbying and consulting firm while also working as a council staffer.

A commission investigation found that Ugarte failed to report outside income from his consulting firm, Ugarte & Associates, for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023, according to the documents.

The Ugarte proposed settlement is set to go before the Ethics Commission on Wednesday.

“This was an unintentional clerical reporting error on my part. As soon as I was made aware, I took full responsibility and corrected them,” Ugarte said in a statement emailed to The Times. “I take disclosure seriously. Moving forward, I have implemented steps to ensure nothing is missed.”

Ugarte said his work with Ugarte & Associates never overlapped with his time in Price’s office. He started working for Price in 2013, but left the office in 2019. He returned in 2021. Ugarte & Associates was formed in 2018 and still conducts business. He co-owns the company with his sister.

The settlement comes as Ugarte’s boss faces his own ethics quandary.

Price was indicted two years ago on 10 counts of grand theft by embezzlement after his wife’s consulting firm received payments of more than $150,000 between 2019 and 2021 from developers before Price voted to approve projects.

Prosecutors also said Price failed to list his wife’s income on his ethics disclosure forms.

Prosecutors have since filed additional charges against Price saying his wife, Del Richardson, was paid hundreds of thousands by the city housing authority while Price voted in favor of millions in grants to the agency. He also wrote a motion to give $30 million to the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority from 2020 to 2021, a time frame in which Richardson was paid more than $200,000 by the agency.

Price said he supports Ugarte despite the ethics violation.

“This matter dates back to 2021, when he was not employed by the city, and is clerical in nature,” Price said in a statement texted to The Times. “I wholeheartedly support Jose Ugarte, alongside an unprecedented coalition of elected officials, labor groups, and community leaders who stand behind his character, leadership and proven record of results.”

Ugarte is one of the leading candidates running to represent Council District 9, which covers South Los Angeles. He raised $211,206 in the first reporting cycle of the election, far outpacing his rivals.

One of Ugarte’s opponents, Estuardo Mazariegos, called the Ethics Commission findings “very disturbing.”

The Ethics Commission also alleged that Ugarte’s documents about outside income, known as Form 700s, failed to report clients who gave $10,000 or more to Ugarte & Associates.

Those clients were mostly independent expenditures for local candidates.

His firm was paid $128,050 to help with the reelection campaign of Congressman Jimmy Gomez (D-California). It was also paid $222,000 by Elect California to help with the reelection campaign of Mitch O’Farrell among other clients.

“This proposed settlement raises more questions than it answers: Are these the only payments Ugarte hid? Why was he concealing them from the public? And above all, how did these massive payments in outside interests affect Jose Ugarte’s work as a city employee?” Mazariegos said in a statement to The Times.

Robert Barnett, a Washington attorney who represented powerful politicians and many of the biggest stars in TV news business, died Friday after a long, unspecified illness. He was 79.

Barnett’s death in a Washington hospital was confirmed by his wife, retired CBS News correspondent Rita Braver.

A longtime partner at the Washington law firm Williams & Connolly, Barnett was the go-to lawyer for politicians and public officials moving into private life. He helped procure multimillion-dollar book contracts for former Presidents Obama, Clinton and George W. Bush.

Barnett was a Democratic political insider as well. He would play opposing candidates in mock debates to help prepare the presidential tickets of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in 2000, John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, Hillary Clinton when she first ran for president in 2008, and Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

“I baited [Ferraro] a lot and she got so angry with me that she frequently walked over to me and slugged me on the arm,” Barnett told CNN in 2008. “So I left the process black and blue.”

Barnett was also Bill Clinton’s debate sparring partner during the 1992 presidential campaign. He also advised the Clintons when White House aide and family friend Vince Foster killed himself in 1993 and when the world learned that Bill Clinton had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Barnett’s TV news client list included former NBC News anchor Brian Williams, “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl, CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, Chris Wallace, NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell, and Jesse Watters and Peter Doocy at Fox News. He also represented his wife, whom he married in 1972.

Barnett also navigated Ann Curry’s messy exit from NBC’s “Today” in 2012.

As an attorney, Barnett was known for his ability to come up with deals tailored to the needs of his clients.

“Many of these people who come out of government have an enormous number of offers,” Barnett told the Financial Times in 2008. “The first thing we do is sit down and say: ‘What are your goals? Do you want to live here or there? You wanna make money or have fun?’”

One reason many clients gravitated to Barnett is that, unlike agents, he did not take a commission. They paid a high hourly rate for his services, not the traditional agent fees of 10% to 15% of salaries or book advances.

Barnett’s clients believed he gave them 100% regardless of their stature.

“Bob represented me in my negotiations with ABC and made me feel just as important as his more celebrated clients,” retired correspondent Judy Muller wrote on Facebook. “A really decent, smart man.”

The sentiment was shared by CBS News Executive Editor Susan Zirinsky.

“Every person who worked with Bob knew their secrets were safe,” Zirinsky said in an interview. “He was the ultimate protector.”

Barnett also drew praise from the companies that paid the lucrative contracts for his TV clients.

“His pristine integrity, wise counsel and knowledge of our business were an invaluable resource to me over the course of our 30-year relationship,” Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media, said in a statement.

Barnett also represented bestselling authors James Patterson and Mary Higgins Clark.

Barnett was born in Waukegan, Ill., where his father operated the local Social Security office and his mother worked part time in a department store. He majored in political science at the University of Wisconsin and received a law degree from the University of Chicago.

He moved to Washington in the early 1970s. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Byron White and worked as an aide to then-Sen. Walter Mondale of Minnesota. He joined Williams & Connolly in 1975, and was made a partner three years later.

In addition to his wife, he is survived by a daughter, Meredith Barnett; a sister; and three grandchildren.

President Trump took his most extensive step yet toward overhauling the U.S. legal migration system, with a pair of proclamations that explicitly favor the wealthiest of the world’s prospective expat workers.

Trump on Friday imposed a $100,000 application fee on the widely used H-1B visa program, a move that would drastically increase the cost of visas heavily coveted by some of America’s largest companies — including in the Silicon Valley — seeking to bring in skilled workers from abroad.

The president also unveiled a “Trump Gold Card” visa program — under which, for the price of $1 million, immigrants could get U.S. residency. Businesses could buy residency permits for $2 million per employee, while a new “platinum”-level card set to be issued soon would cost $5 million and allow the holder to come to the U.S. for up to 270 days a year without being subject to U.S. taxes on non-U.S. income.

The restrictions and fees go into effect on Sunday.

It all amounts to a plan for a new gilded age of immigration to America, where those with the resources to invest are welcomed along with their wallets — while at the same time new barriers to entry are erected for those with lesser means and others seen as taking away jobs that could be occupied by U.S. citizens.

The pomp with which Trump announced the programs echoed the theme — over his right shoulder as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office was an image of a gold card with his face on it along with traditional American images including a bald eagle, all in gold.

It’s a stark shift from America’s stance toward immigration historically, which welcomed those of various economic backgrounds coming to the country legally in search of a better life and more freedom.

‘Significant disadvantage’

Yet even while Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick mused about the prospects of a windfall for the U.S. Treasury that could total $100 billion or more, immigration attorneys cautioned that a move of this magnitude would cause major disruptions — several of them potentially very expensive to the U.S. economy.

Cleveland-based lawyer David Leopold warned that Trump’s H-1B changes, including the $100,000 fee, would “effectively kill the program.”

“Who’s going to pay $100,000 for a petition? Unless you want to make this an exclusive program for extremely rich people,” said Leopold, a partner at UB Greensfelder, whose clients include physicians on H-1Bs.

Accenture, Cognizant Technology and other IT consulting stocks hit session lows on Friday on the news of the visa fee.

“This is a senseless, terrible policy for financial services firms that makes American firms less competitive in the global market for talent,” said Alexis DuFresne, founder of recruiting firm Archer Search Partners.

DuFresne warned that while some mega funds won’t be daunted by the prospect of a new six-figure fee to import top talent, “it will have a substantial impact at the margins — with mid-sized firms, smaller firms, and up-and-coming, younger talent at a significant disadvantage.”

“We have had clients who have said in the past, prior to this announcement, that they do not want to have to sponsor a visa. We anticipate that that will become a more prevalent part of our conversations with clients and their goalposts going forward.”

A feature, not a bug

Some of that sentiment, if it comes to pass, may be seen by this administration as an asset rather than a problem.

Senior members of Trump’s administration have repeatedly complained — in blunt terms — that too many immigrants are taking American jobs.

In a fact sheet, the White House said American workers are being replaced with lower-paid foreign labor and called it a national security threat. The dynamic is suppressing wages and disincentivizing Americans from choosing careers in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), the White House said.

Trump’s proclamation does anticipate a scenario whereby it can work around the new costs if they became a major burden, allowing for case-by-case exemptions if deemed to be in the national interest. That provision opens a potential window for certain companies or industries to seek an exception to the new fee.

Nonetheless, the intention to skew the H-1B program toward higher-paying jobs is clear.

Trump also plans to order the Labor secretary to undertake a rule-making process to revise prevailing-wage levels for the program, a move intended to limit the use of visas to undercut wages that would otherwise be paid to workers who are U.S. citizens.

Legal risks

Courts may also scrutinize the expansive new fees.

The H-1B $100,000 application fee in particular is at risk of being struck down as “excessive,” said Becky Fu von Trapp, an immigration lawyer in Stowe, Vt. That’s because federal law allows agencies to charge enough to recoup reasonable costs, and most work visa applications currently cost about $5,000. Even the most complex ones, for certain investment visas, usually run less than $10,000 in total.

The move could also incentivize technology firms and other companies reliant on foreign workers to set up offices outside the U.S. to avoid the application fee and associated hassles.

“Companies will reassess the need of who they really need to bring to U.S. and who can be based in Canada or Singapore, where they still have good technology infrastructure and can work remotely,” she said.

The move may also have a chilling effect on international students seeking admission to U.S. universities, since many of them hope to find jobs through the H-1B process upon graduation, she said.

Congress will also weigh in, Lutnick said, noting that lawmakers must also approve the planned platinum card program. He predicted that could happen later this year.

That’s easier said than done.

Republicans only narrowly control the House and the Senate. Immigration has been a particularly challenging issue to legislate for the GOP in years past, sparking clashes between the pro-business wing of the party that wants more high-skilled immigrants to come in, and another group far more skeptical of immigration as a whole who’ve sought to limit new arrivals no matter where they come from.

What’s more, Democrats are broadly furious about the president’s stepped-up immigration enforcement including aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in major U.S. cities including Los Angeles. As such, they have little incentive to cooperate without demanding wholesale reversals of Trump’s existing immigration policies, which he almost surely wouldn’t accept.

Wingrove and Soper write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg reporters Katia Porzecanski and Hema Parmar contributed to this report.

Are we in for a new age of scripted basic cable television? Given the successes of the old age, which threaded its way between broadcast and premium cable TV, a little bolder than the former, less pricier than the latter, making up what it lacked in resources with invention and charm — producing such shows as “The Detour,” “Halt and Catch Fire,” “Lodge 49” and “The Closer,” to name just a few of my favorites — I’d be all for it.

Premiering Friday on the USA Network, lately devoted to sports, reality shows and reruns, the legal drama “The Rainmaker” is the first fruit of an intentional return to the network’s self-styled “blue sky” era, when its slogan was “Characters Welcome” and “optimism” in storytelling was a stated goal. “Psych,” “In Plain Sight,” “Monk” and “Suits” — whose recent success after being recycled onto Netflix would seem to be a factor in this turnaround — were among the series born in that period.

Based on John Grisham’s 1995 novel, faithfully adapted by Francis Ford Coppola into a 1997 film starring Matt Damon and Claire Danes, the TV “Rainmaker” has been kitted out with some new and altered characters and a novel focus, and in order to keep you on the hook across 10 episodes, it stirs in a case of arson and a serial murderer. (And surely some additional complications — only five episodes out of 10 were available for review, so even though I wouldn’t tell you about what’s coming later, I couldn’t.) Serial killer notwithstanding — nothing drearier than a serial killer — the nuts and bolts and girders and panels of a USA show are here — colorful characters, one part comedy to one part drama, a mystery to solve, and just a tiny bit of sex. (This is basic cable, remember.)

We meet hot-headed good guy Rudy Baylor (Milo Callaghan) and his cheery girlfriend Sarah Plankmore (Madison Iseman), both not long out of law school, both yet to take the bar exam, at a legal-aid event, providing free advice to the sort of people who could never afford a lawyer, wouldn’t know where to start or maybe just want someone to listen to their stories. They meet Dot Black (Karen Bryson), who is very much not over the death of her son while in a hospital whose name I can’t recall but for my own convenience will just call Bad Hospital. Badspital. That the hospital — the Badspital — has offered her $50,000 while their motion to dismiss is still pending, sets Rudy to wondering what they might be trying to hide. Anyway, Dot, whom we’ll see again, finds the offer insulting and also needs an apology.

Rudy and Sarah have both been hired by the 800-pound gorilla law firm Tinley Britt. On their first day, he arrives late to work — and bloody, having gotten into a fight with his mother’s shiftless, but large, boyfriend. He proceeds to get into another fight, abstractly, with senior partner Leo F. Drummond (John Slattery), who fires him. (In the novel, Rudy is merely laid off in a merger — not so dramatic!) Moaning to friend and bar-owning sometime boss Prince Thomas (Tommie Earl Jenkins) that he’s been turned down by every other respectable firm in town, Thomas suggests “a not so respectable one.”

John Slattery stars as Leo Drummond, a senior partner at Tinley Britt, the law firm where Rudy is hired and subsequently fired.

(Christopher Barr/USA Network)

Here things depart significantly from the text, and the fun begins.

Rudy is delivered to the law offices of glamorous Jocelyn “Bruiser” Stone (Lana Parrilla) and associates, located in a partly converted Mexican restaurant — though past the receptionist the only associate in sight is “paralawyer” Deck Shifflet (P.J. Byrne). A purely comic character, Deck has failed the bar seven times but has many useful skills and qualities, not least a flexible sense of professional ethics. He insists on calling Rudy “Boo Boo.” It takes him a minute to realize it, but Rudy has found his people.

Gender flipped from the novel’s J. Lyman Stone, Bruiser (when not in court) favors animal prints, plunging necklines and short skirts. “I only need three things,” she says. “Kentucky bourbon, a bloody steak and a man who won’t spend the night.” You get the picture.

But there’s more to her than that. When Rudy, who has been with Deck trolling the Badspital for clients, suggests he wasn’t cut out to be an “ambulance chaser,” she also has this to say.

“You know where the term ambulance chaser came from? It was used by white shoe firms in the ’20s to crap on any lawyer that wasn’t a member of their club. When the contingency-fee law was enacted, small firms rose up full of attorneys who were just like their clients, the ones on the Statue of Liberty, the tired, poor, the huddled masses — those same people are our clients now, and if you think you’re better than them, you’re not. You are them.”

It’s good to know someone still takes Emma Lazarus seriously.

Among the figures Rudy and Deck encounter at the hospital, or the Badspit — oh, never mind — is Melvin Pritcher (Dan Fogler), whom we have seen in the series’ opening scene, escaping a house fire that kills his mother. There are several things to say about him that probably constitute spoilers, so I’ll just note that though Melvin is quite unpleasant, Fogler is very good.

With Sarah working for the Empire and Rudy embedded with the rebels, their relationship has been engineered by the writers to be problematic, possibly to break down — though each does seem to be trying. (They’re good kids.) She’s got a trust fund; he’s doesn’t own a suit of his own, dressing rather in one passed down from a dead brother. They’ll wind up in court opposite one another like Tracy and Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” for Tinley Britt is defending the hospital from Dot, who has become a client of Bruiser’s firm. Their future together is also potentially complicated by Kelly Riker (Robyn Cara), a woman who lives in Rudy’s building who is obviously being abused, and Drummond’s smarmy lieutenant Brad Noonan (Wade Briggs) — of course he’d be named Brad — who has been assigned to weaponize Sarah against Rudy.

Callaghan gives off a scintilla of Matt Damon vibes, but is his own Rudy, keeping his naive idealist free from leading-man tics. Parrilla finds the balance between Bruiser’s sauciness and seriousness; Byrne plays the clown adeptly; and Slattery, a boss again after “Mad Men,” softens his villainy with some Roger Sterling insouciance.

Developed by Michael Seitzman and Jason Richman, it’s a very watchable show — serial killer passages notwithstanding. There’s nothing fancy in the execution — it’s the opposite of stylish — but everything’s clearly defined and dialed up a step past normal into that space we call entertainment. Welcome back to the blue sky.

A decade ago, Jesus Adan Rico breathed a big sigh of relief. That was when the Chino High School student, a Dreamer, learned an immigration judge had effectively shelved his deportation proceedings. Maria Torres, who came to the U.S. at 2 years old, also had her deportation proceedings paused by an immigration judge because she recently married a U.S. citizen.

Yet just eight weeks ago, Adan Rico — now 29, married with a new child — discovered that the Trump administration had revived his deportation case, even though he has renewed his DACA status at least four times. Torres learned the government wants to bring back her case just as she was preparing for her green card interview.

“No matter what we do, no matter how far we go in school, in our jobs and with our families, it doesn’t matter. It is all hanging by a thread,” he said.

Adan Rico and Torres are among thousands of immigrants who have built lives around the assumption they are safe from being detained and deported. Now they face that threat at the hands of the Department of Homeland Security, which is giving new life to administratively closed cases in a bid to step up immigration enforcement.

Some lawyers have received dozens of motions to recalendar — the first step to reopen old cases. If lawyers don’t succeed in opposing those motions, the immigrants could wind up back in courthouses that in recent months have become a hub for arrests.

“It has been 10 years,” Adan Rico said. “And all of a sudden our lives are on hold again, at the mercy of these people that think I have no right to be here.”

DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by Madison Sheahan, left, and Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE headquarters in May.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

When asked about the government’s push to restart old proceedings, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin declined to address questions about the administration’s change in policy or respond to attorneys’ complaints about the process. She released a statement similar to others she has offered to the media on immigration inquiries.

“Biden chose to release millions of illegal aliens, including criminals, into the country and used prosecutorial discretion to indefinitely delay their cases and allow them to illegally remain in the United States,” she said. “Now, President Trump and Secretary Noem are following the law and resuming these illegal aliens’ removal proceedings and ensuring their cases are heard by a judge.”

Attorneys handling these proceedings say the government is overwhelming the courts and immigration lawyers by dredging up cases, many of which are a decade or more old. In several of these, clients or their original lawyers have died. In other cases, immigrants have received legal status and were surprised to learn the government was attempting to revive deportation proceedings against them.

Since the 1970s, immigration judges have administratively closed deportation proceedings in order to ease the massive backlog on their dockets and prioritize more urgent cases. The maneuver essentially deferred a case, but didn’t completely dismiss it, giving both the court and the immigrant wiggle room. The idea was that immigrants could pursue other forms of relief such as a hardship waiver or deferred status. The government could reopen the case if needed.

Across the country, immigration attorneys have received a flurry of requests by Homeland Security’s Office of Principal Legal Advisor to revive cases. The motions, attorneys say, appear similar in language, and lack analysis or reference to a change that prompted the decision. In their motions, Trump administration lawyers argue that the targeted immigrants have not been granted green cards and therefore do not have legal status to be here.

The motions urge immigration judges to use their discretion to revive cases and consider whether a person has been detained or the pending application’s “ultimate outcome or likelihood of success.”

What distinguishes immigration proceedings from cases in federal or state courts is that both the lawyers and the judges are part of the executive branch, not the judiciary branch. They answer to Secretary Kristi Noem and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, respectively.

Attorneys and clients are racing against the clock to submit opposition to these motions. Many have become in essence private investigators, tracking down clients they haven’t seen in years. Other attorneys, who have retired, are looking to other immigration attorneys to pick up their client’s case.

“The court is drowning in these motions because we’re trying to resist these,” said David L. Wilson, an immigration attorney at Wilson Law Group in Minneapolis. He first received a batch of 25 government motions at the end of May — and then they kept coming every few weeks. One case involved a client from El Salvador who had been granted Temporary Protected Status, and whose case was administratively closed in 2006.

Adan Rico, a new father who is studying to be an HVAC technician in the Inland Empire, was stunned that the government was seeking to revive deportation proceedings.

The attorney who originally represented him has since died. “If it wasn’t for his daughter calling, I would have never found out my case was reopened,” he said. “The Department of Homeland Security never sent me anything.”

Attorney Patricia M. Corrales speaks at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles office in April.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

His new attorney, Patricia Corrales, said Adan Rico’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status doesn’t come up for renewal until 2027 and it defers deportation proceedings. But Corrales, who has received about a dozen motions, said it appears the government isn’t even checking whether the individuals are alive, much less their immigration status.

One of her cases is that of construction worker Helario Romero Arciniega. Seven years ago, a judge administratively closed deportation proceedings for Romero Arciniega, after he was severely beaten with a metal sprinkler head and had qualified for a visa for crime victims.

This year, government officials filed a motion to bring back the deportation proceedings against the construction worker, even though he had died six months ago.

“They don’t do their homework,” Corrales said of the government lawyers. “They’re very negligent in the manner in which they’re handling these motions to re-calendar.”

Some attorneys have reported delays in their ability to file their opposition motions because the court is so overwhelmed.

When asked about the backlog, Kathryn Mattingly, a spokesperson for the federal immigration court known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review, confirmed that the court “must receive the underlying initial motion before it can accept a response to that motion.”

Some immigrants now in legal limbo were just steps away from finalizing their green card applications.

Maria Torres, an L.A. County resident and mother of two, said she was only 2 years old when she was brought to the U.S. by her family. She grew up undocumented, and when the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program became available, applied to gain work authorization.

But in 2019, at 21, she was arrested on suspicion of a misdemeanor DUI, which put her into deportation proceedings. She took the classes and paid her ticket. With deportation proceedings open against her, she was able to get her case closed in 2022 while she sought a visa through her husband, a U.S. citizen.

Her visa was approved, and with just one interview appointment left, Torres felt blindsided when she received a call from her attorney’s office, saying the government wanted to restart deportation proceedings against her.

“I just felt my heart sink and I started crying,” she said. Her attorney submitted a motion opposing the recalendaring of the case, and they are waiting to hear how a judge will rule. In the meantime, she said, she’s hopeful she’ll have her final interview for her approved visa before then.

“People aren’t getting due process,” said attorney Mariela Caravetta. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Mariela Caravetta, an immigration attorney in Van Nuys, said that, since early June, about 30 of her clients have been targeted with government motions to reopen their cases.

By law, she has to reply in 10 days. That means she has to track down the client, who may have moved out of state.

“It’s bad faith doing it like that,” said Caravetta, who accused the federal government of flooding the immigration courts in an effort to meet its deportation quotas.

“People aren’t getting due process,” she said. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”

Caravetta has convinced some judges to deny the government motions because the clients are seeking ways to legally stay in the country. In a handful of cases, she hasn’t been able to reach her clients.

The government isn’t making an effort to reach out to attorneys to discuss the cases, as is required, she added. “That would save a lot of time for everybody,” she said. Her clients may have U-visas, which give relief to migrants who have been victims of crime and who help investigators or prosecutors. But the government’s motions say, “These people have not done anything to legalize their status, we need a final resolution.”

Matt O’Brien, a former federal immigration judge and deputy executive director of FAIR, which advocates for stricter immigration laws, said the Trump administration is “enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act the way that Congress wrote it.”

He questioned why attorneys are complaining about cases being recalendared, saying “it’s akin to a motion of reopening a case in any other court.”

Yet for many immigrants whose cases are being revived, the risks are high. Judges have discretion to deny motions to reopen cases, and have done so in some situations, attorneys say. But judges have also approved the government’s request if there is no opposition from the immigrant or their attorney.

At that point, cases are put on the calendar. If it gets scheduled, and the immigrants do not show up to court, they could eventually be ruled “in absentia,” which would make them vulnerable to immediate deportation and bar them from entering the country legally for years.

It all fits with the Trump administration’s goal of increasing deportation numbers, say many immigration lawyers and former officials.

“They are getting the largest pool possible of people that they can remove, and removing them from the country,” said Jason Hauser, the former chief of staff of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “And what stands in the way from that is a working due process of an immigration system.”

In April, Sirce E. Owen, acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, issued a memo criticizing the use of administrative closure, referring to it as “a de facto amnesty program with benefits” because it offers work authorization and deportation protections. Owen, a former immigration judge, rescinded previous Biden administration guidance that offered a more proactive approach to administrative closures.

Owen stated that, as of April, about 379,000 cases were still administratively closed in immigration court and cited them as a contributing factor to the court system’s backlog of 4 million cases.

In immigration courts in Los Angeles and San Diego, attorneys are already seeing these cases come before immigration judges. Many clients have expressed shock and despair at being dragged back into court.

Sherman Oaks attorney Edgardo Quintanilla has seen about 40 cases recently, including some dating back to the 2010s. Clients, he said, are alarmed not only by the government’s legal maneuvers but by the prospect of entering a federal building these days.

“There is always the fear that they may be arrested when they go to the court,” he said. “With everything going on, it is a reasonable fear.”

James Arthur McDonald Jr., an investor and financial analyst who frequently appeared on CNBC, was sentenced to five years in prison for defrauding investors in a multimillion-dollar scheme, the United States Attorney’s Office said on Monday.

McDonald, 53, a former San Gabriel Valley resident, was the CEO and chief investment officer of two Los Angeles-based companies: Hercules Investments LLC and Index Strategy Advisors Inc.

In late 2020, McDonald adopted a “risky short position” betting against the U.S. economy following the presidential election, with the idea that the combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and the election would trigger a major sell-off in the stock market, according to the Justice Department. However, when the expected market drop did not happen, Hercules’ clients lost between $30 million and $40 million.

McDonald “solicited millions of dollars’ worth of funds from investors” for the purposes of raising capital for Hercules at the start of 2021 after clients complained to the firm’s employees about their losses. However, in doing so, McDonald “misrepresented how the funds would be used” and failed to disclose the firm’s massive losses.

According to the Justice Department, McDonald obtained $675,000 from “one victim group” and then misappropriated most of the money including spending $174,610 at a Porsche dealership and transferring an additional $109,512 to the landlord of a home he was renting in Arcadia.

McDonald also defrauded clients at Index Strategy Advisors, his other firm, said the Justice Department, using less than half of $3.6 million he raised for trading purposes on personal and other expenditures.

McDonald commingled clients’ funds with his personal bank account and used the money to buy luxury cars, pay his rent, make credit card payments, pay off Hercules operating expenses and “to make Ponzi-like payments” to Index Strategy clients — including paying some of those clients using funds from other clients.

Prosecutors claimed that McDonald caused his victims more than $3 million in losses.

“To his victims, [McDonald] seemed to embody the American Dream,” prosecutors argued in a sentencing memorandum. “But looks can be deceiving, and as [McDonald’s] victims learned, their trust had been betrayed.”

In November 2021, McDonald failed to appear before the Securities and Exchange Commission to testify about the allegations he had defrauded investors, and remained a fugitive until last June when he was found at a residence in Port Orchard, Wash.

At the time of his arrest, law enforcement found a fake Washington, D.C., driver’s license with his photograph and the name “Brian Thomas.”

In April 2024, a U.S. District judge found McDonald and Hercules liable for violating federal securities law and ordered them to pay millions in disgorgement and civil penalties.

McDonald pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud in February.

He will be ordered to pay restitution in this case before a United States district judge at a later date.

A judge on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from grand jury investigations of Jeffrey Epstein years ago in Florida, though a similar request for the work of a different grand jury is pending in New York.

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in West Palm Beach said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the extraordinary exceptions under federal law that could make them public.

The Justice Department last week asked the judge to release records to quell a storm among supporters of President Trump who believe there was a conspiracy to protect Epstein’s clients and conceal videos of crimes being committed and other evidence.

In 2008, Epstein cut a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida that allowed him to escape more severe federal charges and instead plead guilty to state charges of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche had asked judges in Florida and New York to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, saying “transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.”

Federal grand juries hear evidence in secret and then decide whether there is enough for an indictment. Experts say the transcripts probably would not reveal much because prosecutors typically try to present only enough material to get charges and don’t introduce the entire investigation.

Epstein, a wealthy financier, years later was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges, and Maxwell was charged with helping him abuse teenage girls.

Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City about a month after he was arrested. Investigators concluded he killed himself. Maxwell later was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The case attracted attention because of Epstein and Maxwell’s links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. It also led to some of the biggest conspiracy theories animating Trump’s base.

The furor over records has been stoked by the Justice Department. In February, far-right influencers were invited to the White House and provided with binders marked “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” and “Declassified.” The binders contained documents that had largely already been in the public domain.

The department on July 7 acknowledged that Epstein did not have a list of clients. It also said no more files related to his case would be made public.

A two-page memo that bore the logos of the FBI and Justice Department, but that was not signed by any individual, said the department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

White writes for the Associated Press.

Skip Brittenham, a prominent Hollywood attorney whose clients included Harrison Ford, Henry Winkler and Eddie Murphy, has died at age 83.

Brittenham died Thursday, said Ziffren Brittenham LLP, the firm he founded in 1978.

“Everyone in our industry knew of Skip’s legal prowess,” the firm said in a statement. “But some may not have known of his quiet generosity, his ability to find humor and opportunity in the darkest moments, and his unwavering belief that media and the entertainment industry must serve people, not the other way around.”

The firm did not disclose the cause of death.

Brittenham was known in the entertainment industry as a powerful dealmaker. Beyond his starry client list, Brittenham helped to forge Pixar’s initial deal with Disney, was behind the splitting of DreamWorks and ushered Disney’s acquisition of Miramax.

“What amuses me most about Skip is he often represents everyone in the deal,” Ford, who was a client before he rose to fame with “Star Wars,” told The Times in 2005. “And, he does a really good job for everybody … I’ve always walked away from every negotiation and thought, ‘Jesus, how did he get that?’”

Ken Ziffren, one of two lawyers with whom Brittenham founded the firm, told The Times in 2005 that early in their partnership, the two discovered they were wooing the same prospective client, comedian Richard Pryor.

“Skip did not back down,” Ziffren said. “He got Pryor.”

Born Harry M. Brittenham, the eldest son of an Air Force fighter pilot, he spent much of his childhood moving from one base to another. Although he attended Air Force Academy, Brittenham got hit in the eye with a squash racket in 1963. His 20-20 vision — a requirement for pilot training — was gone.

He spent four years negotiating contracts for the Air Force before enrolling in law school at UCLA.

Outside of his professional life, Brittenham was a passionate fly-fisher with decades of experience. He competed in and won several worldwide fishing competitions and practiced the sport across six continents.

The love of nature Brittenham tended to as he pursued fly-fishing led him to serve as a longtime board member of Conservation International, a leading environmental organization that honored him with its Heroes of Conservation Award.

Brittenham was also an avid fan of science fiction, and he authored a sci-fi graphic novel titled “Anomaly” in 2012. Speaking with The Times ahead of the book’s release, Brittenham said he wanted to dabble in his creative side and tap into his childhood love for Marvel and DC Comics to show people he was more than just a negotiator.

“I don’t like to just try things out,” he said. “I like to jump all the way in and figure out how to do something unique and different.”

Although Brittenham is remembered as a tenacious lawyer, he also had a reputation as a family man, often leaving the office by 5 p.m. to be with his wife and children.

Brittenham was married to actor and screenwriter Heather Thomas, and he had three daughters: Kristina, Shauna and India. He is also survived by his brother Bud, two devoted sons-in-law Jesse Sisgold and Avi Reiter, and four grandchildren.