investor

As many as a dozen letters — including one from the NBA — were submitted by the attorney for Aspiration Partners co-founder Joe Sanberg ahead of his sentencing Monday in an effort to persuade the judge to trim the 17 years prosecutors have requested for each of the two counts of fraud.

Sanberg pleaded guilty in October to the federal charges of conspiring to bilk investors out of $248 million for portraying the now-defunct Aspiration as a “socially-conscious and sustainable banking services and investment products” firm.

Another letter was also submitted, however, and it wasn’t intended to assist Sanberg.

Clippers owner Steve Ballmer’s attorney David N. Kelley of O’Melveny and Myers wrote that Ballmer was defrauded of a $60-million investment in Aspiration and that the harm to his reputation is “immeasurable.”

The five-page Victim Impact Statement concludes: “Mr. Ballmer’s losses are not measured solely, or even primarily, on a balance sheet. They are measured in the reputational damage that will take years to remediate, and in the chilling effect on future endeavors intended to do good at scale.

“We ask the court to impose a sentence that accounts for those harms, promotes respect for the law, and deters those who would seek to appropriate the reputations of others to advance fraudulent aims.”

The letter states that the Clippers lost out on a $300 million sponsorship agreement with Sanberg in exchange for the team to wear Aspiration jerseys patches. Also lost was about $20 million the Clippers paid for carbon offset purchases and the $60 million Ballmer invested in the company.

Ballmer, a former long-time CEO of Microsoft, accused Sanberg of targeting him for his well-known interest in environmental sustainability and exaggerating their relationship to convince others to invest in the fraudulent company. In the letter, Ballmer says he met Sanberg only once.

Ballmer was added in November as a defendant in an existing civil lawsuit against Sanberg and several others associated with Aspiration. Ballmer and the other defendants are accused by 11 investors in Aspiration of fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, with the plaintiffs seeking at least $50 million in damages.

The letter dismisses the allegations in the lawsuit as “nonsense,” stating Ballmer was added as a defendant because of his “visibility and resources,” and reiterates that Ballmer himself is a victim of fraud. The action has damaged his reputation, the letter states, “and has further linked Mr. Ballmer to Sanberg’s fraud in the eyes of the public.”

The letter to the court, however, makes no mention of the $28-million contract Clippers star Kawhi Leonard signed with Aspiration for endorsement and marketing work. Players are allowed to have separate endorsement and other business deals, but at issue is whether the Clippers participated in arranging the side deal beyond simply introducing Aspiration executives to Leonard.

Leonard has addressed the accusations only once, denying wrongdoing and saying, “I understand the full contract and services that I had to do. Like I said, I don’t deal with conspiracies or the click-bait analysts or journalism that’s going on.”

The arrangement could be considered circumventing the NBA salary cap, a serious violation of league rules. Ballmer steadfastly denies arranging the deal between Aspiration and Leonard, who by all accounts performed no duties for Aspiration.

The NBA is investigating the complicated relationships between Ballmer, Leonard and Aspiration. One of the letters submitted by Sanberg’s attorney to the judge is from the law firm conducting the probe, and it states that the disgraced executive provided documentation and information helpful to the NBA investigation during two in-person interviews.

“In all our dealings with Mr. Sanberg, both directly and through his counsel, he provided information that was consistent with our review of contemporaneous documents and other evidence,” wrote Dave Anders of Wachtell Lipton. “Mr. Sanberg’s cooperation substantially assisted our investigation, including our ability to develop a more complete understanding of key events.”

Eventually the ledger will include the results of the NBA investigation into the allegations against Ballmer and Leonard. And that finding might impact the reputation of both more than Sanberg’s fraudulent dealings.

It felt like the Olympics. Crowds cheering. The American flag standing tall above the bleachers. Trainers jumping with anticipation. A swimmer staring in disbelief at the clock after his final stroke. The Jumbotron announced: Kristian Gkolomeev — 20.89 seconds. A new world record in the 50-meter freestyle.

Well, kind of.

I’ve left out some details. There was only one swimmer. The crowd? Just doctors, trainers and filmmakers. This was not in an Olympic city nor an Olympic year, but in Greensboro, N.C., in 2025. And there were no iconic rings on the banners, just “Enhanced Games.”

Yes, Gkolomeev swam faster than César Cielo, the official record holder at the time (20.91 seconds). But he did it “enhanced” — a polite way to say that he used performance-enhancing drugs. At the Enhanced Games, doping isn’t punished. It’s required.

The concept, as described by the organization: “to create the definitive scientific, cultural and sporting movement that safely evolves mankind into a new superhumanity.”

Backed by investors such as Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr.’s 1789 Capital, the Enhanced Games embodies a techno-utopian ideal: athletes as canvases for chemical optimization, testing the limits of human health for a lot of money. Gkolomeev earned $1 million for his record.

So far, the competition has happened at one-off pop-up events. But in May, Las Vegas will host the first full-scale Enhanced Games, a four-day meet in swimming, track and field, and weightlifting. The group advertises a “potential prize purse of $7.5 million for just a single day of competition,” plus appearance fees.

Does it need to be said? Apparently yes: The Enhanced Games glorifies the risky use of enhancement drugs.

Steroids can harden arteries, elevate stroke risk, damage the liver and permanently alter hormone systems. They are not electrolyte tablets or a little preworkout creatine. If Lance Armstrong had been rewarded — rather than sanctioned — for doping, what would have happened to competitive cycling?

Fans — and especially kids — mimic their idols. As risky as the drugs are for athletes at the Enhanced Games, with its “medical commission” to give the illusion of safety, the substances are even more dangerous when used by people without medical supervision.

The games also expose the economic neglect that drives athletes toward such competition. As Benjamin Proud, the British silver medalist who recently joined the Enhanced Games, put it: “It would have taken me 13 years of winning a World Championship title in order to win what I could win in one race at these games.”

Indeed, the Enhanced Games might look like an easy way out. Only nine swimmers worldwide received prize money and performance bonuses above $75,000 in 2025, according to World Aquatics.

Investors clearly hope to make money off the games as well. The organization is moving closer to becoming a publicly traded company. The economics are not mysterious.

But the Enhanced Games are not just another sporting event. They are an arena for biomedical experimentation and should be regulated as such. The games should face limits similar to those imposed on other high-risk industries, including age restrictions and strict advertising rules.

We already know how to govern legal, profitable activities that carry serious health risks.

In the United States, that means oversight from the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission — bodies that regulate drug protocols and police misleading commercial claims. A steroid-based competition should not be treated as a sport but as a medical experiment and a marketing stunt.

Regulations on pharmaceutical advertising offer a useful model for the Enhanced Games. Prescription drugs are advertised every night on television, but only under strict rules. They require fair balance (content must present benefits and risks with comparable prominence, readability and duration) and a “major statement” of risks (most serious risks must be spoken aloud and not obscured by visuals or music).

Right now, when you play Gkolomeev’s “world-record” video on YouTube, a medical-risk warning appears for barely five seconds — then vanishes. If a cholesterol drug must audibly warn viewers of stroke risk, why shouldn’t a steroid-based competition do the same?

Enhanced Games content should be accompanied by clear warnings of the risks of performance-enhancing drugs and be clearly labeled, age-gated and distributed as high-risk content more akin to pornography than to a boxing match.

Prohibition is not the answer. Trying to shut down these games only fuels a controversy-driven brand. Just recently, the Enhanced Games sued organizations such as World Aquatics and the World Anti-Doping Agency, alleging antitrust violations and that blocking athletes from participating at the Enhanced Games is illegal. As those organizations fight back, they will be seeking to protect the integrity of mainstream sports, but they will also inadvertently be promoting the Enhanced Games.

If we want kids to admire clean athletes rather than those using banned drugs, the Las Vegas launch must not reach the world as a Super Bowl would. The Enhanced Games should not be televised or allowed to stream online to minors. Otherwise, Las Vegas, in May, risks becoming an unregulated public-health experiment mislabeled as a sporting event.

Fabricio Ramos dos Santos is a lawyer, entrepreneur and sports investor.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s nominee to chair the Federal Reserve said Tuesday that he never promised the White House that he would cut interest rates, even as the president renewed his calls for the central bank to do so.

“The president never once asked me to commit to any particular interest rate decision, period,” Kevin Warsh, a former top Fed official, said under questioning by the Senate Banking Committee. “Nor would I ever agree to do so if he had. … I will be an independent actor if confirmed as chair of the Federal Reserve.”

Warsh’s comments came just hours after Trump, in an interview on CNBC, was asked if he would be disappointed if Warsh didn’t immediately cut rates and responded, “I would.”

The comments underscore the challenge faced by Warsh, 56, a financier and former member of the Fed’s board of governors whom Trump named in January to replace the current Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell. Democrats on the committee accused Warsh of flip-flopping on interest rates over the years, supporting higher interest rates under Democratic presidents and advocating rate cuts during Trump’s time in office. Investors are watching the hearing closely to see how Warsh balances Trump’s demands with worsening inflation, as the war in Iran pushes up the price of gasoline.

Higher inflation typically leads the Fed to raise rates, or at least keep them unchanged, rather than cut them. When the Fed changes its key rate, it can affect mortgages, auto loans and business borrowing.

Yet Warsh’s account was challenged by Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, who said that Wall Street Journal reporting last year found that Trump had urged Warsh to reduce borrowing costs.

“Who’s lying here? Is it you or the president?” Gallego asked.

“I think those reporters need better sources,” Warsh responded.

For all the back and forth, the hearing didn’t appear to advance Warsh’s nomination, which has been delayed by a Justice Department investigation into the Fed and Powell, over brief testimony Powell gave last June before the same panel about a building renovation.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican on the committee, reiterated Tuesday he wouldn’t vote for Warsh until the investigation is dropped. With the committee closely divided and all Democrats opposed to his nomination, Tillis’ opposition is enough to bottle it up in committee.

“We have got to get rid of this investigation,” Tillis said, “so I can support your nomination.”

Tillis has previously said that all seven Republicans on the committee have signed a letter stating that Powell did not commit a crime when he testified before the panel last June. Federal prosecutors, led by U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro, are investigating his testimony for potential perjury, though a judge said last month they offered no evidence to support the charge when he threw out subpoenas Pirro had issued.

Prosecutors from her office as recently as last week sought access to the Fed’s building project but were turned away, revealing that the Trump administration has not reversed course despite opposition from members of his own party that are essential to Warsh’s confirmation.

In his opening remarks, Warsh told the Senate Banking Committee that one of his top goals would be to fight inflation, which remains elevated at 3.3% annually.

“Congress tasked the Fed with the mission to ensure price stability, without excuse or equivocation, argument or anguish,” Warsh said. “Inflation is a choice, and the Fed must take responsibility for it.”

Warsh would be in a tough spot if confirmed. Inflation is worsening, making it much harder for the Fed to implement the interest rate cuts Trump so desperately seeks. The conflict could also slow the economy, as well as hiring. And if Warsh ultimately becomes chair, he may very well find his predecessor, Powell, still sitting on the Fed’s governing board, an uncomfortable arrangement that hasn’t occurred since the late 1940s.

Warsh said the Fed’s political independence is “essential,” and that the central bank wasn’t threatened when “elected officials — presidents, senators, or members of the House — state their views on interest rates.” Trump has repeatedly urged Powell to cut the Fed’s key rate from its current level of about 3.6% to as low as 1%, a view almost no economist shares.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said that Trump has not just stated his opinions on rates, but has sought to fire a Fed governor and is investigating Powell.

“The Senate should not be aiding and abetting Donald Trump’s illegal takeover of the Fed by installing his chosen sock puppet as chair,” she said Tuesday.

Warren also noted that Warsh has not disclosed all of his financial holdings, which include investments in startups and private companies, or the size of those financial stakes. For example, Warsh has said he has holdings in SpaceX and Polymarket, but has not said how large those investments are.

Warren charged that Warsh is not in compliance with ethics requirements. Warsh argued that the Office of Government Ethics has signed off on his plan to sell all his assets within 90 days of his confirmation.

The turmoil could make a potential transition from Powell to Warsh an unusually turbulent one for the world’s most pivotal central bank, which has historically experienced smooth transfers of power. Should the change in leadership prove particularly bumpy, it could unnerve markets and lift longer-term interest rates.

Powell’s term as chair ends May 15. He said last month that he would remain as chair until a successor is named. Powell also is serving a separate term as a member of the Fed’s governing board that lasts until January 2028. Fed chairs typically leave the board when their terms as chair end, but Powell said last month he would remain on the board, even if a new chair is approved, until the investigation is dropped.

Trump said he would fire Powell if he attempted to remain at the Fed. Yet Trump’s previous attempt to remove a Fed governor, Lisa Cook, has been tied up in court. During oral arguments in January, a majority of justices on the Supreme Court appeared to lean toward leaving Cook at the Fed.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

Billionaire investor Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square has proposed a takeover of Universal Music Group in a $64bn deal, the latest twist in his nearly five-year quest for the music label giant.

Pershing Square proposed a cash-and-shares offer on Tuesday through its acquisition vehicle that values Universal Music at about 30.40 euros ($35) per share, a 78 percent premium to the last closing price of 17.10 euros ($20), making the deal worth 55.75 billion euros ($64.31bn).

Universal Music Group (UMG) – the company behind international superstars, including Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish and Kendrick Lamar – is expected to move its listing to New York from Amsterdam, paving the way for more investors, including index funds, to own the company and ultimately lead to more robust earnings and a higher valuation.

Universal Music declined a Reuters news agency request for comment.

For Ackman, one of the world’s most voluble investors, who cemented his fame and fortune as an activist investor, forcefully pushing corporate America to adopt changes, this is a far friendlier approach, investors and industry analysts said.

Even as the music industry is flourishing, UMG’s share price has lagged, something Ackman is pledging to fix with this proposed deal.

Ackman’s letter to Universal Music Group’s board carried a mixed tone, at times complimentary of current management, led by chairman and chief executive Lucian Grainge, and critical of the company’s “underutilized balance sheet” and handling of its 2.7 billion euro ($3.1bn) investment in Spotify Technology.

Fears of AI disrupting the music industry have played a role in UMG’s lacklustre performance. Its share of the music market has been sliding, and streaming growth is decelerating, Wells Fargo analysts noted. In March, UMG delayed its plans for a US listing.

Nonetheless, Ackman will need the support of UMG’s top shareholders – Bollore Group, which holds an 18.5 percent stake, and Vivendi, which owns 13.4 percent – to push through any transaction. China’s Tencent is a significant shareholder. French billionaire Vincent Bollore’s family controls 80 percent of UMG’s voting rights.

Old target

Ackman first flirted with Universal Music Group in 2021, when his Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, a shell corporation created to take a private company public, zeroed in on its target. But Ackman shelved the complex deal in the wake of heavy US regulatory scrutiny. Instead, Pershing Square became one of UMG’s biggest investors in 2021, and Ackman sat on its board until last year.

Post transaction, Ackman said Grainge should remain Universal Music’s chief executive.

Ackman said he and former Hollywood super-agent Michael Ovitz met with Grainge over dinner “a couple of weeks ago” to discuss the potential merger.

“Lucian encouraged us to send it in,” Ackman said.

Ackman proposed adding new directors, including Ovitz – who shepherded the careers of Madonna and Michael Jackson – who would become the board chair. Additionally, two representatives from Pershing Square would get seats, he said, not saying yet whether he would be one of the directors.

Shares of UMG, which is listed in Amsterdam, were up 13 percent on Tuesday, while Bollore Group climbed 5 percent. Shares in Vivendi were up more than 10 percent.

Pershing bought a 10 percent stake in UMG from Vivendi ahead of its 2021 Amsterdam IPO and has since repeatedly pressed for a New York listing, arguing it would boost UMG’s share price and liquidity.

Pershing currently has a 4.7 percent stake, making it UMG’s fourth-biggest shareholder.

UMG’s shares have lost almost a third of their value since its IPO.

Even as global music revenues grow year after year, UMG and other major labels, like Sony and Warner Music, are scrambling to stay competitive as streaming services from Spotify, Amazon, Apple and Deezer take an ever greater share.

They are now also contending with disruptions brought on by the expansion of AI – from copyright disputes to the advent of song-generating AI tools – that threaten to upend how music is created, consumed and monetised.

One survey last year found that a staggering 97 percent of listeners could distinguish between AI-generated and human-composed songs.

Under Tuesday’s proposal, Pershing’s SPARC Holdings would merge with UMG, and the new entity would become a Nevada corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Billionaire investor Bill Ackman has launched a $65 billion bid to purchase Universal Music, the label representing some of music’s biggest names like Taylor Swift, Kendrick Lamar and Bad Bunny.

As part of the proposed deal, UMG would merge with Ackman’s investment firm, Pershing Square Capital Management, and the company’s stock listing would be relocated from Amsterdam to the New York Stock Exchange.

Pershing Square already holds more than 4.5% of the music giant’s shares. Ackman said the move to a U.S.-based stock exchange would increase the value of UMG .

“UMG’s stock price has languished due to a combination of issues that are unrelated to the performance of its music business and importantly, all of them can be addressed with this transaction,” said Ackman in a statement.

The proposed deal includes Universal Music merging with Pershing Square SPARC Holdings, an acquisition company approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2023. If agreed upon, the proposed transaction could close at the end of the year, according to the company.

Universal Music Group currently has its corporate headquarters in the Netherlands and a local L.A. office in Santa Monica. The label was founded in 1996. Over the years, it’s cemented its reputation as one of the music industry’s “Big Three,” alongside Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment. Universal also controls smaller labels like Republic Records, Interscope Geffen A&M, Capitol Music Group, and Def Jam Recordings.

The news has drawn a level of skepticism, as Ackman will need two-thirds of UMG’s investors to approve the proposed deal, including French billionaire Vincent Bolloré, who is UMG’s largest shareholder with a morethan 18% stake, according to Bloomberg.

If finalized, UMG shareholders would receive €9.4 billion in cash, around €5.05 per share, or roughly $10.9 billion and $5.84 per share.

Investors would receive 0.77 shares in the new merged company. This would value the total consideration package of cash and stock estimated to be worth €30.40 per share, a 78% premium to UMG’s stock price. The transaction will also include the cancellation of 17% of UMG outstanding shares. The new UMG will have 1.541 billion shares outstanding.

UMG’s stock price has jumped over 11% to €19.05 Tuesday morning, due to this potential acquisition.

SACRAMENTO — During the Los Angeles writers’ strike in 2023, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell wanted to reach out to his donors in Hollywood and ask what he could do to help them. But he didn’t have an easy way to find the screenwriters who backed his many campaigns.

So Swalwell and his congressional chief of staff launched an AI technology company that sifts and analyzes campaign fundraising data.

The company has since been used by dozens of political campaigns, including by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). Even Swalwell’s current campaign for California governor hired the artificial intelligence company, called Findraiser.

But some details of Swalwell’s private venture remain unclear, including the company’s investors.

Craig Holman, a governmental ethics expert with the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, said it’s common and legal for candidates to use their own businesses to promote their campaigns or the campaigns of others, as long as all business interactions are charged at market value.

He said Swalwell can talk about his business privately but cannot do so in relation to his role in Congress, to avoid running afoul of ethics rules barring using one’s position for personal monetary gain.

Holman called it “odd and politically unwise” that Swalwell’s business will not publicly disclose all of its investors.

Swalwell, who has represented Northern California in Congress since 2013, is among the top Democrats in the governor’s race, according to a recent poll, but thus far none of the candidates has a breakaway lead.

Findraiser is close to profitability, his onetime chief of staff, current campaign manager and Findraiser CEO Yardena Wolf said in a podcast interview that aired in October.

The company received more than $67,400 from congressional campaigns in the 2025-26 cycle, according to filings with the federal government.

Members of Congress are not barred from owning outside companies or accepting a small outside salary, with exceptions. Swalwell makes no income from the company, according to filings he has made with the state of California, though he could benefit if the company was ever sold.

“Findraiser is a platform like hundreds of other tools in the market that helps Democratic campaigns communicate more efficiently,” a Swalwell spokesperson said. “Congressman Swalwell and the Findraiser team consulted the House Committee on Ethics on the conception and implementation of the tool every step of the way.”

Still, it highlights how mixing public service and private business can raise ethics questions.

Wolf told The Times that none of Findraiser’s investors have business before Congress, but she declined to reveal the names of the backers.

The fair market value of Findraiser is between $100,001 and $1 million, according to campaign finance documents filed with the state this month.

Swalwell stated on the documents that he is a part owner. Besides the Congress member and Wolf, the other member of the company listed with the state is Paul Mandell, who runs an event business.

The company’s website boasts that it provides a “straightforward AI-powered chatbot that supercharges your fundraising database searches. This first-of-its-kind tool sits on top of your political fundraising database, allowing you to ask simple, intuitive questions and receive the results you need instantly.”

The website also contains testimonials, including from former Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison, who says Findraiser provides the AI technology that makes it “easier than ever for campaigns to connect with the right donors and raise what they need to win.”

The amount of money campaigns are paying to use Findraiser is nominal, federal campaign finance records show. During the 2025-26 cycle, Swalwell’s campaign for Congress reported paying Findraiser $6,630. His campaign for governor paid the company $975.

Wolf, in an interview with The Times, declined to provide details about the company’s staff or how much it charges customers.

In her interview with the political podcast “The Great Battlefield,” she recounted that the writers’ strike was the impetus for Findraiser and said Swalwell came up with the name.

She conceded that it is “pretty unusual” for a member of Congress to start a company with his chief of staff. She also said there was “a lot of ethics back and forth — of lawyers and all of that, to make sure that we were aboveboard and that everything is kosher.”

Among other things, Findraiser has helped Swalwell’s campaigns pull in more money, she said. For example, the campaign could identify donors who gave small amounts to Swalwell but larger checks to other politicians, Wolf said.

“We’ve been able to set up meetings with people like that, and they’ve increased their contributions.”

Aside from Wolf, one other staff member who works for both Swalwell’s campaign and his government office is also being paid via a contract to do digital work for Findraiser, Wolf confirmed.

Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group, said that although there is no prohibition on a member of Congress hiring his own company, voters may perceive an issue.

“Voters may see self-dealing as evidence that a candidate is prioritizing personal enrichment over public service, which damages confidence in elections and governmental institutions,” he said.

“If donors give money knowing it will personally benefit the candidate, that undermines the integrity of the political system.”

Swalwell’s campaign declined to respond to Beckel’s statements.

Wolf in her podcast interview last year said the business was “going really well.”

“We have PACs that use it. We have first-time candidates, as well as 20-year incumbents who are using it. We have congressional races and Senate races,” Wolf said.

Around 2024, the company began offering beta testing, she said.

“Obviously, both Eric’s and my network are people who are in the political space and just in our day to day, as we were talking to people, we had people say, ‘Well, I want to use it,’” Wolf said. “And so we had a group of people who ended up beta testing.”

A spokesperson for Swalwell’s campaign said that “Findraiser spread through word of mouth among campaigns across the country. Any decision by a campaign or candidate to utilize the tool is based on their choice and their organization’s strategic prioritization.”

The Times contacted 16 congressional campaigns that reported using Findraiser in recent federal filings. None would tell The Times how they came to hire the company.

Both Schiff and Gomez have endorsed Swalwell in his campaign for governor.

Schiff’s paid about $2,000 for two months of Findraiser services last year. However, Wolf, in her podcast interview, said Findraiser works with Schiff “a lot.”

Ian Mariani, a spokesperson for Schiff’s campaign, said the company “is one of many campaign vendors used by our team, and it helped us engage with several people.”

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.”