sex

ACTOR and director Timothy Busfield is facing allegations of child sexual abuse.

An arrest warrant has been issued for the Emmy-winning star, best known for his roles in “Field of Dreams” and the TV shows “The West Wing” and “Thirtysomething”.

A police probe into the film icon was launched in November 2024 when cops attended the University of New Mexico Hospital after a doctor made a report.

An officer reportedly spoke with two parents who said their children were actors on the FOX TV show “The Cleaning Lady” – where Busfield, 68, worked as a director.

The producer is alleged to have told the siblings to call him “Uncle Tim”, and was accused of tickling their stomach and legs, according to a warrant filed by Albuquerque police on January 4.

Hospital employees told police that it appeared the kids had been groomed, court documents say.

PORN STAR ‘PREDATOR’

Inside horrific rape & sex attack allegations made against Ron Jeremy

One of the minors claimed the alleged abuse started when he was seven years old.

Busfield allegedly touched the child five or six times on another occasion.

The director is said to have grown “closer to the boys” over the series shooting, the children’s’ parents say in the arrest warrant.

One of the minors told a therapist in 2025 that Busfield touched his “genitalia” and “bottom” while in a bedroom on the set of the TV show, according to an affidavit obtained by KTLA.

The document says that Busfield told an officer that he had engaged in “playful” contact with the children on set, but denied any wrongdoing. 

Busfield, also well-known for his role in “Revenge of the Nerds”, now faces two counts of sexual contact with a minor and child abuse. 

It is currently unclear whether or not the Hollywood star has been booked yet.

According to his arrest warrant, Busfield has previously faced sexual assault allegations dating back to 1994.

The Sun reached out to Busfield’s team for comment.

Busfield has over 700 credits as an actor, producer and director in TV and film.

He won an Emmy Award for his role as Elliot Weston on the hit series “Thirtysomething” in 1991.

The film industry giant is best-known for his role as Danny Concannon in several seasons of “The West Wing”.

But he has also appeared in several films including “Stripes,” “Sneakers” and “Quiz Show”.

Busfield married Melissa Gilbert in 2013, and the pair do not share any children.

Breaking news… More to follow…

IT CAN’T be easy dating red-hot Sydney Sweeney – just ask her new boyfriend Scooter Braun.

Everyone wants a piece of Sydney right now, and The Sun has bombshell insider knowledge that reveals the truth about the couple’s struggles as countless men compete for her attention.

A-list fame comes with complications – particularly for Scooter, 44, who sources say is struggling to adjust and gets nervous when 28-year-old Sydney takes “me time”.

Premier League footballers have also been “constantly” sliding into her DMs, with some tracking down her private number, sources say.

Scooter finds the persistence “incredibly disrespectful,” even though Sydney blocks and ignores them, according to the insiders.

The Hollywood couple went public last August, shortly after she confirmed her split from longtime partner Jonathan Davino.

They got engaged in 2022, but announced last March that they were now spending time apart.

Sydney, however, didn’t waste any time moving on, with her and new boy Scooter not shy about their blossoming love.

They have been spotted kissing in Los Angeles following the premiere of her new film, and later spent Thanksgiving together at Sydney’s Florida Keys home.

Behind the scenes, however, tensions are beginning to boil.

Insiders claim Scooter was left “furious and disrespected” late last year after Sydney met Davino in LA – a situation that sources say crossed a line for the 44-year-old music executive.

Despite that, friends insist the relationship remains serious.

One well-placed source says the friction has been sparked by differing expectations, especially in the eyes of “old school” Scooter.

“Sydney has always been fiercely independent,” the insider explains. “She values time alone — whether that’s travelling by herself, going out with girlfriends, or just switching off. Scooter prefers togetherness, and he’s still adjusting to that.”

Recent Instagram posts showing Sydney enjoying a dreamy solo trip to snowy Lapland only fuelled speculation. She appeared carefree, glowing and having the time of her life — though it remains unclear whether Scooter joined her.

FRIENDS ARE WORRIED

Friends have also raised concerns about the couple’s 16-year age gap.

While Sydney has dated older men before — Davino is 41 — some social media barbs have struck a nerve with Scooter.

It’s not hard to find negative comments about the pair online.

Everything from “Scooter is stalking out his next payday” to “he is way too old for her” have flooded the comment sections about their relationship.

Some hit harder than others.

“What a step down,” one online critic snapped. “But he does have contacts and is super rich so I see what she is doing here.”

Another blasted the pairing was “gross” and that Scooter “isn’t good enough and definitely not good enough looking.”

The music executive was also slammed as a “red flag” and ridiculed as a “limp piece of spaghetti”.

The swathes of negativity have been hard to handle for the New Yorker.

“He struggles with the mockery,” the source says. “He’s still learning that she doesn’t need permission or reassurance to live her life.”

Those sensitivities may be shaped by Scooter’s bruising past.

His very public feud with Taylor Swift in 2019, sparked by the sale of her masters, left his reputation in tatters and it may never recover.

Scooter wants to build a long-term future with her.

Sydney Sweeney insider on her new flame

High-profile clients drifted away, his marriage ended, and Scooter later admitted the episode took a severe toll on his mental health.

He has spoken openly recently about having suicidal tendencies.

In recent years, however, he has consciously stepped back from the industry spotlight.

Scooter has focused on charity work and personal growth — and hoping to build a life with Sydney.

After a run of box-office disappointments, Sydney appears to have struck gold with thriller The Housemaid.

Made for around £25 million, the film has already grossed £100 million worldwide and earned strong reviews.

Indeed, it’s been such a success that there are already plans in the works for a blockbuster sequel.

With an estimated net worth north of £30 million, Sydney is officially Hollywood’s hottest property.

Not bad for a girl whose cash-strapped family were forced to leave the humble surroundings of Spokane, Washington and were forced into bankruptcy while attempting to turn her into a star.

Now, however, the spotlight is shining brighter than ever on Tinseltown’s new golden girl never stops.

Neither does the rush for her affections.

Sydney told The Sun last year that her DMs are “not a safe space,” and the messages keep coming.

Premier League stars from England’s top clubs have been bombarding Sydney with messages – but she never replies, insiders say.

“She’s completely transparent,” one source adds. “She shows him everything to be honest. Seeing how relentless some of these men are can upset him — but she always reassures him.”

The jealousy doesn’t bother her though.

“She likes seeing him get a little jealous,” the insider says. “To her, it shows he cares and is fully invested.”

Scooter knows he’s dating a global star, and a modern sex symbol.

He is quickly finding out loving Sydney doesn’t just mean trusting her — it means learning to share her with the world.

“Scooter wants to build a long-term future with her,” concluded the source.

Only time will tell if his dream becomes a reality.

The Sun has approached Sydney and Scooter for comment.

IT’S fair to assume Will Smith had high hopes for a better year ahead after a disastrous stretch of career lows and romance woes.

But as 2026 rang in, the fallen Oscar-winner and rapper was slapped with a lawsuit amid claims of sexual harassment and wrongful termination.

Violinist Brian King Joseph, who performed on Will’s 2025 tour, Based On A True Story, accuses the A-lister of “grooming” him while they worked together.

And he alleges that when he reported things to management, he was kicked off the tour and “shamed” by the powers that be.

According to Brian, who reached the top three on America’s Got Talent in 2018, he was hired by Will in 2024 after auditioning for him at his home.

Will apparently told him: “You and I have a special connection.”

TRAGIC LOSS

Tommy Lee Jones’ daughter ‘found dead on New Year’s Day in luxury hotel’

‘PREDATOR’ SMITH

Will Smith sued for sexual harassment by male tour violinist & TV star

Then, while touring with him in Las Vegas last March, he says he came back to his hotel room at 11pm and found it had been “unlawfully entered” by an “unknown person”, who had left a handwritten note, as well as random items including wipes, a beer bottle, an earring and a bottle of HIV medication.

The note read: “Brian, I’ll be back no later [sic] 5:30, just us” with a drawn heart, and signed: “Stone F.”

In legal filings, Brian says he reported the incident to hotel security and Will’s management out of fear someone would return to his room to “engage in sexual acts” with him.

But after doing so, he alleges, he was “shamed” by tour management and given the boot, causing him “severe emotional distress, economic loss, reputational harm and other damages” as well as “PTSD and other mental illness”.

‘Lost all self-control’

According to the lawsuit, a member of Will’s tour management told Brian, “Everyone is telling me that what happened to you is a lie, nothing happened, and you made the whole thing up”, court documents state.

Though not naming Will, 57, as the unknown person who entered his room, court papers say the “facts suggest” the star was “deliberately grooming and priming Mr Joseph for further sexual exploitation”.

He is now demanding a jury trial.

Will denies all allegations, with his attorney Allen B. Grodsky slamming Brian’s claims as “false, baseless and reckless”.

He added: “They are categorically denied, and we will use all legal means available to . . . ensure that the truth is brought to light.”

A court battle would be an ugly circus for Will at a time when he could really use some good news in the public eye.

After all, things have ostensibly gone from bad to worse for the former blockbuster king over the past few years.

It’s now approaching the four-year anniversary of the Oscar slap that was heard around the world, when an irate Will stormed the stage at the 94th Academy Awards and hit comedian Chris Rock across the face.

The incident was sparked after Chris made a joke about Will’s wife Jada Pinkett Smith’s bald head, which was a result of her alopecia, and amid Will’s calls to “keep my wife’s name out of your f***ing mouth!”.

It was supposed to be Will’s night of triumph as he finally received an Oscar for his critically acclaimed performance in King Richard.

Instead, it went down in infamy as the night he lost all self-control.

He was duly given a seven-year ban from all Academy, Grammy, Tony and Emmy events and, in the aftermath, shirked the spotlight.

Since then, things haven’t gone smoothly.

In fact, his road to redemption has been paved with constant knocks and embarrassing detours, personally and professionally.

In particular, his unconventional relationship with Jada, 54, has been the subject of much scrutiny and confusion.

Having long been pegged as one of Hollywood’s golden couples, the pair hit headlines in 2020 when they revealed during an episode of Jada’s Facebook series Red Table Talk that she’d had an affair a few years before with singer August Alsina.

At the time, Jada described it as an “entanglement”.

As a result, she and Will had even more of a point to prove when they stepped on to the red carpet at that fateful 2022 Oscars.

But a year later, Jada dropped a motherlode of truth bombs about their relationship in her 2023 memoir, Worthy.

In the book, and on its promo trail, she revealed that — despite putting on a united front in public — she and Will had been separated for seven years and no longer lived together.

According to Jada, she’d kept up the facade because Will “wasn’t ready” to tell the world.

So instead, she said, she took the bullet, painting herself as “the adulterous wife” in the “false narrative” they created.

While the pair had no intention of divorcing — and still have not done so — Will was reportedly “humiliated” by Jada’s candidness.

They used to live by their famous slogan, paraphrased from Will’s movie Bad Boys: “We ride together, we die together, bad marriage for life.”

But Jada’s revelations apparently left Will feeling more isolated than ever — which, insiders said at the time, was a bitter pill to swallow after he defended her at the Oscars.

Crashed and burned

As things stand, Will and Jada still have no plans to officially end their 28-year marriage.

They came together to wish their daughter Willow a happy birthday in October, and have since been reportedly pictured together in public.

But as news spread of Brian’s lawsuit against Will, Jada stayed noticeably quiet.

She previously said that, at some stage, they’ll live together again, but only because, “it’s getting apparent to me that [Will’s] gonna need someone to take care of him” — making her ex sound more like a burden.

Meanwhile, Will’s attempt to reclaim his place on the A-list have seen things go from bad to worse.

In late 2023, as the dust settled on Jada’s marriage revelations, Will was accused of previously having sex with his Fresh Prince of Bel-Air co-star Duane Martin.

In an interview with internet personality Tasha K, Brother Bilaal — who described himself as Will’s ex-personal assistant — said he’d walked in on the alleged act.

A court battle would be an ugly circus for Will at a time when he could really use some good news in the public eye

On podcast Unwine with Tasha K, he also compared the size of Will’s manhood to a “pinky toe”.

In response, Will’s spokesperson slammed the claims as “completely fabricated” and said they were considering taking legal action.

No action was taken, but Brother Bilaal hasn’t gone quietly.

In fact, he’s since filed a $3million lawsuit against Jada, alleging “emotional distress”.

Neither Will nor Jada have commented, but a hearing is scheduled for March 9, inevitably casting another shadow over them.

Then, of course, there is Will’s damp squib of an attempt to reignite his music career that crashed and burned with last year’s tour.

In late 2023, as the dust settled on Jada’s marriage revelations, Will was accused of previously having sex with his Fresh Prince of Bel-Air co-star Duane Martin

Having long proven himself as a multi- hyphenate entertainer, it should have been a safe bet for Will to return to his rapper roots after his Oscar disgrace.

That way, he could continue to make us miss him on the big screen, while still connecting to his fans and making up for a few years of lost income.

So, his comeback tour, Based On A True Story, really was supposed to be an all-out triumph.

‘Used to be cool’

However, promotional footage started going viral for all the wrong reasons, after fans accused the star of using AI in crowd reactions.

In the film — which was posted to Will’s YouTube channel — there were a whole host of bizarre visual errors, including blurred faces, oddly shaped hands and one sign that read “FR6SH CRINCE”.

As one fan said: “Imagine being this rich and famous and having to use AI footage of crowds and bot comments on your video. Tragic, man. You used to be cool.”

Will looked a shadow of his former self as he kicked off the European leg of his tour in front of 6,000 fans in Scarborough at TK Maxx Presents . . . last summer, followed by Wolverhampton Civic Hall and the O2 Academy in Brixton.

Let’s remember, this is a former superstar who performed in front of more than half-a-million people at the Live 8 event in Philadelphia in 2005.

Imagine being this rich and famous and having to use AI footage of crowds and bot comments on your video. Tragic, man. You used to be cool

A fan

The same year, he set a Guinness World Record after attending an unprecedented three movie premieres in one day.

He hightailed it across the UK to promote romcom Hitch in Manchester, Birmingham and London.

Back then, he was untouchable, with two US No1s under his belt and the ability to command leading- man status in films including Men In Black (and its sequels), as well as Ali, The Pursuit Of Happyness and I Am Legend.

But nothing lasts for ever, and Will’s much more modest tour last year was a reminder of how far he’s fallen from grace.

He put on a brave face, but the online comments spoke for themselves.

One fan called him “pathetic” and told him to “enjoy” his retirement instead of seeking his former glory.

Now, as the former Hollywood icon begins the year facing a lawsuit, it’s fair to say he is staring down the barrel of yet another challenging 12 months.

Having always relied on his family to support him, the world will be watching to see if he steps out with Jada and their children, Jaden, 27, and Willow, 25 — plus his older son Trey, 33, from a previous marriage.

But as things stand, all parties had yesterday remained silent.

It may be early days for 2026, but Will has certainly taken a sharp detour from the golden road he trod for so long.

With no movies on the docket, he’s hanging his hat on upcoming National Geographic docu-series, Pole To Pole With Will Smith.

WITH her steamy shower scenes and sexy outfits, you might assume the much-hyped Sydney Sweeney is the centre of attention in new thriller movie The Housemaid.

Instead, critics are raving about her older co-star Amanda Seyfried as the standout of the film that hit UK cinemas yesterday.

Mamma Mia! actress Amanda, 40, is tipped for an Oscar nod for The Testament Of Ann Lee, which is out in February and sees her play the founder of the Christian fundamentalist Shaker Movement in the 18th century.

But it is The Housemaid, based on the same-named bestselling 2022 novel by US author Freida McFadden, that will be putting bums on seats first.

In the sexy flick, Amanda plays deranged housewife Nina Winchester, who hires 28-year-old Sydney’s Millie Calloway to take care of domestic chores and her daughter.

But nothing is what it seems in this psychological potboiler as Amanda — also famed for 2004 teen movie Mean Girls, as a student who believes her breasts predict the weather — steals the show.

united front

Inside the Beckhams’ Christmas without Brooklyn as they ‘send message’ to son

wedding prep

Adam Peaty’s mum does U-turn on wedding vow as Holly Ramsay’s heads to venue

Revelling in the role, she teases: “It’s dark as s**t. But when you get opportunities like that — to go nuts, go anywhere — I’m so happy I can still do it.

“There were ample opportunities for me to play unhinged, and playing unhinged is delicious. I had so much fun.”

In The Housemaid trailer, the two co-stars appear to be at each other’s throats. There is shouting, screaming and knives are reached for.

But in real life, fellow Americans Amanda and Sydney became great pals while making and promoting the film.

‘She’s a sweetheart’

For a bit of fun together, they even took a lie-detector test for Vanity Fair magazine, with a very animated Amanda asking Sydney whether her breasts were real.

Sydney is now caught in a storm over her recent “great jeans” ad, as some claimed its pun on “genes” hinted at white supremacy.

But Donald Trump, hailed it “the hottest ad out there”.

There have also been online rumours of her having romances with co-stars including Housemaid actor Brandon Sklenar and Glen Powell, who Sydney got steamy with in 2023 rom com Anyone But You. None of it was true.

Amanda knows about falling for a co-star, having dated Dominic Cooper from 2008 film Mamma Mia! for three years before the British actor reportedly broke her heart.

But asked about all the hype around pin-up Sydney, she told Vanity Fair: “I don’t envy anything she’s going through.

“I’ve spent a lot of time with her, we just hit it off immediately. She’s a sweetheart. I did not have a moment like she’s having, ever.”

If Sydney ever wanted to know more about the ups and downs of fame, Amanda would be a great person to chat to.

People would run into me and kids would be like, ‘Hey, can you tell us what your boobs are thinking?’ I got that so often, but I didn’t mind it’

Amanda Seyfried

Her pharmacist dad Jack and mum Ann, an occupational therapist, brought her up on a college campus in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

At school, Amanda started modelling then, in her teens, broke into acting with roles in US soap operas As The World Turns and All My Children.

This led to the “liberation and freedom of living on my own in New York City”, as her career took off.

She says: “I was having so much fun — paid a thousand dollars a day and working, like, three times a week — for a 17-year-old.”

The dream seemed to be over when the TV work dried up, and she enrolled at college.

But then an audition for mega-hit Mean Girls, which starred Lindsay Lohan and Rachel McAdams, saved her career.

Amanda says: “I was just happy to be working — big cheque.”

But playing that student who believes her boobs have superpowers led to some pointed questions from admirers.

She recalls: “People would run into me and kids would be like, ‘Hey, can you tell us what your boobs are thinking?’ I got that so often, but I didn’t mind it. I did my job, good enough, I guess.”

Four years later, she got the lead role of Sophie in Abba-inspired smash-hit movie musical Mamma Mia!, alongside Meryl Streep.

Amanda says of the much sought-after part: “I can’t f***ing believe I got that role but it felt like something I should be doing, could be doing.”

She was on a roll as further box-office success followed, including 2009 comedy-horror Jennifer’s Body with Megan Fox, 2010 romantic drama Dear John with Channing Tatum, and 2012 hit Les Miserables.

But not all of her career choices turned out well. She passed on the role of green alien Gamora in 2014 superhero blockbuster Guardians Of The Galaxy, only for it to take nearly £600million worldwide and spawn a pair of sequels.

The part was played instead by Zoe Saldana. Amanda says: “The offer came in and I was like, ‘I should take this, right? But this is going to be Marvel’s first bomb and I do not want to be ruined for the rest of my life. Who the f is going to see a movie with a talking raccoon?’”

But her later decision to star in an off-Broadway play in New York called The Way We Get By in 2015 was to have a major impact on her personal life. Co-star Thomas Sadoski would become her husband two years later.

She says: “We met, we came very, very close, and then we started seeing each other a year later — and now we have kids [a daughter born in 2017 and son born in 2020].”

Amanda had never intended to be a mum because she feared it might ruin her career.

But she says: “If you’re lucky enough to accidentally get pregnant, which was me twice, I’m just like, thank God. I would have been, ‘I’m too busy’, ‘I’m gonna disappear from Hollywood and it’s gonna be hard to get back on track.’”

If you’re lucky enough to accidentally get pregnant, which was me twice, I’m just like, thank God. I would have been, ‘I’m too busy’, ‘I’m gonna disappear from Hollywood and it’s gonna be hard to get back on track.’

Amanda

In reality, after getting pregnant, Amanda took only a few months off and discovered she was being offered “mum” roles by casting directors.

She says: “There’s something that happens to you when you become a mother or a father.

“You know, when your life no longer matters as much and you can’t live for yourself any more.

“That sacrifice also is very enriching and the roles got better. But it was funny how fast that happened. They’re like, ‘She’s pregnant. Is she pregnant? Oh, she had a baby. Oh, yeah, no, she’s a mom. She’s a mom now.’

“But I did play one character where I was not a mom, since then.”

One mum she played was silent film star Marion Davies in Gary Oldman’s 2020 movie Mank, about alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz railing against 1930s Hollywood society while completing the screenplay of 1941 movie classic Citizen Kane.

That led to a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination in 2021, which in turn secured a starring role in the Disney+ series The Dropout, for which she won an Emmy and Golden Globe.

‘Weird dance’

Amanda says: “Going to the Oscars, you’re like, ‘I’m just happy to be here’, honestly. But it brought me up the casting list. I got the offer for The Dropout the next day.”

But there were restrictions on playing real-life character Elizabeth Holmes in The Dropout because the medical fraudster was not convicted until January 2022.

The programme’s lawyers even advised against sex scenes.

Amanda says: “Every script went through a team of lawyers.

“We couldn’t say certain things, we couldn’t do certain things. We couldn’t show them making love, so we had that weird dance scene because that was their foreplay.”

Every script went through a team of lawyers. We couldn’t say certain things, we couldn’t do certain things. We couldn’t show them making love, so we had that weird dance scene because that was their foreplay

Amanda Seyfried

Fast-forward to now, and her title role in upcoming period drama The Testament Of Ann Lee, about the UK-born Shaker Movement being taken to the US by Manchester lass Ann in 1774.

It sees Amanda shake ecstatically as the ultra-puritanical sect, which avoided earthly pleasures such as sex, celebrated the Almighty.

Also known for their pacifism, the Shakers’ number peaked in the mid-19th century but then declined with industrialisation, with only one active community remaining today, in Maine. Amanda says of Ann: “Nobody could have sex because sex, she thought, was the root of all evil — the root of why she was in so much pain.

“She had got pregnant and lost her babies.

“The idea that taking sex away could make you closer to wholeness is kind of beautiful. I think she’s nuts and also very cool.”

But despite her impressive credits reel, Amanda still reckons she must battle to stay on the “list” of most-wanted actresses in Hollywood.

She says: “These f***ing lists. Every time I’m auditioning it’s like I fluctuate. I fall down the list, I go to the top of the second list or keep going back to the bottom of the first list, and it’s like, I’m lucky to be on the list at all.”

But after The Housemaid, she shouldn’t need to worry about being on that Tinseltown A-list.

EROTIC AND CAMP

THE HOUSEMAID (15) 131mins

★★★☆☆

By LINDA MARRIC

A GLOSSY, erotic thriller that is as hilariously camp as it is suspenseful.

Adapted from Freida McFadden’s smash-hit novel by director Paul Feig and screenwriter Rebecca Sonnenshine, Sydney Sweeney stars as Millie, a young woman fresh out of prison.

She takes a live-in maid job at the lavish home of wealthy couple Nina and Andrew Winchester (Amanda Seyfried and Brandon Sklenar).

What initially promises a fresh start for the young woman, quickly turns into something far stranger as Nina’s wildly erratic behaviour borders on the theatrical, while Andrew’s “perfect husband” routine grows increasingly unrealistic.

Feig, usually known for his work in comedy, brings an over-the-top energy to this adaptation that makes for a fun, if slightly ridiculous, ride.

While his shift into psychological drama feels a bit bumpy, the film’s knowingly silly vibe is exactly what makes it so entertaining.

But it struggles with its own shifting tone and at 131 minutes, the pacing sags and several twists are made a little too obvious.

Sweeney does her best with the script but it is Seyfried who ultimately comes out on top here, putting in a brilliantly unhinged performance as Nina.

The Housemaid may lack subtlety and genuine menace but no one can deny that it is a great deal of fun from start to finish.

The 50-year-old comedian is already facing similar charges, including rape and sexual assault, involving four women.

British authorities have brought new counts of rape and sexual assault against comedian Russell Brand, who is already facing similar charges involving four women.

The United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said on Tuesday that the new charges – one count of rape and one of sexual assault – against Brand were in relation to two further women. The alleged offences took place in 2009, the CPS said.

Brand, 50, had already been charged in April with two counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault. The charges were brought after an 18-month investigation launched when four women alleged they had been assaulted by the comedian.

Prosecutors said these offences took place from 1999 to 2005, one in the English seaside town of Bournemouth and the other three in London.

Brand pleaded not guilty to those charges in a London court.

He is expected to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on January 20 in relation to the two new charges. A trial has also been scheduled for June 16 and is expected to last four to five weeks.

The Get Him to the Greek actor, known for risque stand-up routines and battles with drugs and alcohol, has dropped out of the mainstream media in recent years. He built a large following online with videos mixing wellness with conspiracy theories as well as discussions about religion.

When the first group of charges was announced in April, Brand said he welcomed the opportunity to prove his innocence.

“I was a fool before I lived in the light of the Lord,” he said in a social media video. “I was a drug addict, a sex addict and an imbecile. But what I never was, was a rapist. I’ve never engaged in nonconsensual activity. I pray that you can see that by looking in my eyes.”

Detective Chief Inspector Tariq Farooqi said the women involved in the case “continue to receive support from specially trained officers”.

He added the police investigation was ongoing and urged “anyone affected by this case or anyone with information to come forward”.

A transgender employee of the National Security Agency is suing the Trump administration and seeking to block enforcement of a presidential executive order and other policies the employee says violate federal civil rights law.

Sarah O’Neill, an NSA data scientist who is transgender, is challenging President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order that required the federal government, in all operations and printed materials, to recognize only two “immutable” sexes: male and female.

According to the lawsuit filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in Maryland, Trump’s order “declares that it is the policy of the United States government to deny Ms. O’Neill’s very existence.”

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

The order, which reflected Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric, spurred policies that O’Neill is challenging, as well.

Since Trump’s initial executive action, O’Neill asserts the NSA has canceled its policy recognizing her transgender identity and “right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment,” while “prohibiting her from identifying her pronouns as female in written communications” and “barring her from using the women’s restroom at work.”

O’Neill contends those policies and the orders behind them create a hostile work environment and violate Section VII of the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that Section VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on sex applied to gender identity.

“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” the court’s majority opinion stated. “But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”

O’Neill’s lawsuit argued, “The Executive Order rejects the existence of gender identity altogether, let alone the possibility that someone’s gender identity can differ from their sex, which it characterizes as ‘gender ideology.’ ”

In addition to restoring her workplace rights and protections, O’Neill is seeking financial damages.

Trump’s order was among a flurry of executive actions he took hours after taking office. He has continued using executive action aggressively in his second presidency, prompting many legal challenges that are still working their way through the federal judiciary.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Walking out of a Skid Row market, Harold Cook, 42, decides to play a game.

How long after opening YouTube will it take for him to see an ad asking him to join the latest wave of sex abuse litigation against Los Angeles County?

“I can literally turn my phone on right now, something’s going to pop up,” said Cook, opening the app.

Within a few seconds, a message blares: “They thought you’d never speak up. They figured you was too young, too scared, too Black, too brown, too alone. … L.A. County already had to cough up $4 billion to settle these cases. So why not you?”

Since the historic April payout to resolve thousands of claims of sex abuse in county-run facilities, law firms have saturated L.A.’s airwaves and social media with campaigns seeking new clients. For months, government officials have quietly questioned who is financing the wall-to-wall marketing blitz.

The ad Cook heard was from Sheldon Law Group, one of several law firms active in sex abuse litigation in California that receive backing from private investors, according to loan notices and SEC filings. The investors, which often operate through Delaware companies, expect to profit from the payouts to resolve the cases.

Sheldon, based in Washington, D.C., has been one of the most prolific L.A. advertisers. The firm has already gathered roughly 2,500 potential clients, according to a list submitted to the county. The lawsuits started being filed this summer, raising the prospect of another costly settlement squeezed out of a government on the brink of a fiscal crisis.

“We act in the best interests of our clients, who are victims in every sense of the word and have suffered real and quite dreadful injuries,” a spokesperson for Sheldon Law Group said in a statement. “Without financial and legal support, these victims would be unable to hold the responsible parties, powerful corporate or governmental defendants, accountable.”

The financing deals have raised alarms among lawmakers, who say they want to know what portion of the billions poised to be diverted from government services to victims of horrific sex abuse will go to opaque private investors.

Kathryn Barger, a member of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, said she was contacted by a litigation investor who sought to gauge whether sex abuse litigation could be a smart venture. “This is so predatory,” Barger told The Times.

(Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times)

“I’m getting calls from the East Coast asking me if people should invest in bankrupting L.A. County,” Supervisor Kathryn Barger said. “I understand people want to make money, but I feel like this is so predatory.”

Barger said an old college friend who invests in lawsuits reached out this spring attempting to gauge whether L.A. County sex abuse litigation could be a smart venture. Barger said the caller referred to the lawsuits as an “evergreen” investment.

“That means it keeps on giving,” she said. “There’s no end to it.”

The county has spent nearly $5 billion this year on sex abuse litigation, with the bulk of that total coming from the $4-billion deal this spring — the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

The April settlement is under investigation by the L.A. County district attorney office following Times reporting that found plaintiffs who said they were paid by recruiters to join the litigation, including some who said they filed fraudulent claims. All were represented by Downtown LA Law Group, which handled roughly 2,700 plaintiffs.

Downtown LA Law Group has denied all wrongdoing and said it “only wants justice for real victims.” The firm took out a bank loan in summer 2024, according to a financing statement, but a spokesperson said they had no investor financing.

Lawyers who take the private financing say it’s a win-win. Investors make money on high-interest rate loans while smaller law firms have the capital they need to take on deep-pocketed corporations and governments. If people were victimized by predators on the county’s payroll, they deserve to have a law firm that can afford to work for free until the case settles. Money for investors, they emphasize, comes out of their cut — not the clients’.

But critics say the flow of outside money incentivizes law firms to amass as many plaintiffs as possible for the wrong reasons — not to spread access to justice, but rather ensure hefty profit for themselves and their financial backers.

“The amount of money being generated by private equity in these situations — that’s absurd,” said former state lawmaker Lorena Gonzalez, who wrote the 2019 bill that opened the floodgate for older sex abuse claims to be filed. “Nobody should be getting wealthy off taxpayer dollars.”

For residents of L.A.’s poorest neighborhood, ads touting life-changing payouts have started to feel inescapable.

Waiting in line at a Skid Row food shelter, William Alexander, 27, said his YouTube streaming is punctuated by commercials featuring a robotic man he suspects is AI calling on him to sue the county over sex abuse.

Across the street, Shane Honey, 56, said nearly every commercial break on the news seems to feature someone asking if he was neglected at a juvenile hall.

In many of the ads, the same name pops up: Sheldon Law Group.

Austin Trapp, a case worker in Skid Row, was among several people in the neighborhood who said ads seeking people to join sex abuse litigation against L.A. County have become increasingly common.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Sheldon’s website lists no attorneys, but claims the firm is the “architect” behind “some of the largest litigations on Earth.” They list their headquarters online at a D.C. virtual office space, though the owners on their most recent business filing list their own addresses in New York. The firm’s name appears on websites hunting for people suffering from video game addiction, exposure to toxins from 9/11, and toe implant failure.

Sheldon Law Group was started by the founder of Legal Recovery Associates, a New York litigation funding company that uses money from investors including hedge funds to recruit large numbers of plaintiffs for “mass torts,” cases where many people are suing over the same problem, according to interviews with former advisers, court records and business filings.

Those clients are gathered for one of their affiliated law firms, including Sheldon Law Group, according to two people involved in past transactions.

Ron Lasorsa, a former Wall Street investment banker who said he advised Legal Recovery Associates on setting up the affiliate law firms, told The Times it was built to make investors “obscenely rich.”

“It’s extremely profitable for people who know what the hell they’re doing,” Lasorsa said.

The idea, he says, emerged from a pool cabana at a Las Vegas legal conference called Mass Torts Made Perfect in fall 2015.

A man visiting friends on Skid Row holds up his phone showing an ad recruiting clients for sex abuse case in Los Angeles County on December 11, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Lasorsa had just amassed 14,000 clients for personal injury lawsuits in one year using methods that, he now says, were legally dubious. A favorite at the time: using call centers in India that had access to Americans’ hospital records and phoning the patients to see if they were feeling litigious.

Near the pool at a Vegas hotel, Lasorsa said Howard Berger, a former hedge fund manager barred by the SEC from working as a broker, asked if he could turbocharge the caseload of Legal Recovery Associates, where he worked as a consultant.

Lasorsa said he soon teamed up with the founders of LRA — Gary Podell, a real estate developer, and Greg Goldberg, a former investment manager — to create “shell” law firms based in Washington. The nation’s capital is one of the few places where non-lawyers can own a law firm, profiting directly from case proceeds.

Goldberg, who is not licensed to practice law in D.C., would become a partner in at least six D.C. law firms including Sheldon Law Group by 2017, according to a contract between Legal Recovery Associates and a hedge fund that financed the firms’ cases.

Sheldon, which said it was responding on behalf of Podell, said in a statement that all their partners are lawyers, though declined to name them. Goldberg did not respond to a repeated request for comment.

The Sheldon spokesperson said Legal Recovery Associates is a separate entity that engages in its “own business and legal activities.”

Investors typically make money on litigation by providing law firms with loans, which experts say carry interest rates as high as 30%, representing the risk involved. If the case goes south, investors get nothing. If it settles, they make it all back — and then some.

Lasorsa said he helped the company gather 20,000 claims using the same Indian call centers before a bitter 2019 split. He later accused the owners of unethical behavior, which led to a half-million dollar settlement and a non-disparagement agreement that he said he decided to breach, leading to a roughly $600,000 penalty he has yet to pay, according to a court judgment.

Lasorsa was also ordered to delete any disparaging statements he’d made, according to the judgment.

D.C. law firms with non-lawyers as partners must have the “sole purpose” of providing “legal services,” according to the district’s bar. Some attorneys have argued no such service was provided by the firms associated with Legal Recovery Associates.

Troy Brenes, an Orange County attorney who co-counseled with one of the firms over flawed medical devices, accused the company of operating a “sham law firm” as part of a 2022 court battle over fees.

“The sole purpose … appears to have been to allow non-lawyers to market for product liability cases and then refer those cases to legitimate law firms in exchange for a portion of the attorney fees without making any effort to comply with the D.C. ethics rules,” Brenes wrote.

A spokesperson for Sheldon and LRA noted in a statement that “no court or arbitration panel has ever concluded” that its business structure violates the law.

In the medical device cases, the affiliate firm, which was responsible for funding the marketing campaign, took 55% of recoverable attorney fees, according to an agreement between the two firms. The profit divide mirrors the 55/45 breakdown between Sheldon Law Group and James Harris Law, a two-person Seattle firm they have partnered with on the L.A. County sex abuse cases, according to a retainer agreement reviewed by The Times.

A person on Skid Row in downtown L.A. shows an ad on their phone seeking plaintiffs to joint a lawsuit over sexual abuse in juvenile halls.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

This summer, ads linking to a webpage with the name of James Harris appeared online, telling potential clients they could qualify in 30 seconds for up to $1 million. When a Times reporter entered a cell-phone number on one of the ads, a representative who said they worked for the firm’s intake department called dozens of times.

After The Times described these marketing efforts in a story, Harris emphasized in an email that he did not know about the ads or the persistent calls and said they were done by his “referring firm.” The landing page the ads led to was replaced with the name of Sheldon Law Group.

Harris said his firm and Sheldon, which he described as “functioning as a genuine and independent co counsel law firm,” have “been highly selective and have only prosecuted cases that we believe are legally and factually meritorious.”

“I continue to believe that lawyer advertising, when conducted ethically and without misleading claims, serves as a vital tool for raising public awareness about legal rights and available recourse, particularly for survivors of abuse seeking justice,” he said.

Over the last five years, experts say, the practice of funding big mass tort cases has boomed in the U.S.

Of the five main firms in L.A. County’s initial $4-billion sex abuse settlement, two took money from outside investors shortly before they began suing the county, according to public loan filings.

The loans to both Herman Law, a Florida-based firm that specializes in sex abuse cases, and Slater Slater Schuman, a New York-based personal injury firm, came from Delaware-registered companies. Deer Finance, a New York City litigation funding firm that connects investors with lawyers, is listed on business records for both companies.

The loan documents do not specify which of the firms’ cases were funded, but show each deal was finalized within months of the firms starting to sue L.A. County for sex abuse. Neither firm responded to questions about how the outside funding was used.

Slater, which received the loan in spring 2022, represents more L.A. County plaintiffs than any other firm, by far.

Slater’s caseload surged after the county signaled its plan to settle for $4 billion in October 2024. Several of the main attorneys on the case told The Times they stopped advertising at that point, reasoning that any new plaintiffs would now mean less money for the existing ones.

The next month, Slater Slater Schulman ran more than 700 radio ads in Los Angeles seeking juvenile detention abuse claims, according to X Ante, a company that tracks mass tort advertisements.

By this summer, the number of claims jumped from roughly 2,100 to 3,700, according to court records, catapulting Slater far beyond the caseload of any other firm.

This fall, another Delaware-registered company took out a lien on all of Slater’s attorney fees from the county cases, according to an Oct. 6 loan record. The law firm assisting with the transaction declined to comment.

“These are extraordinarily complex cases and litigating these cases effectively requires resources,” said an outside attorney representing Slater in a statement, responding to questions from The Times.

The firm, which also represents roughly 14,000 victims in the Boy Scouts sex abuse cases, was singled out by the judge overseeing the litigation this fall for “procedural and factual problems” among its plaintiffs. The firm was one of several called out by insurers in the litigation for using hedge fund money to “run up the claim number.”

The firm has said they’re working “tirelessly” to address the issues and justice for survivors is its top priority.

April Mannani, who says she was assaulted in the 1990s by an officer while she was housed at MacLaren Children’s Center, said she feels lawyers on the sex abuse cases are putting profits ahead of the best interests of clients.

(Jimena Peck/For The Times)

Many plaintiffs told The Times they were discouraged to see how much money stood to be made for others off their trauma.

April Mannani, 51, sued L.A. County after she said she was raped repeatedly as a teenager at MacLaren Children’s Center, a shelter now notorious for abuse. Mannani accepts that her lawyers are entitled to a cut for their work on the case, but said she was disheartened watching the numbers of cases suddenly skyrocket this year. With the district attorney investigating, a pall has been cast over the entire settlement.

“We’ve been made fools of and we were used for financial gain,” she said. “They all just see it as a money grab.”

That firm that represents her, Herman Law, has filed roughly 800 cases against L.A. County. Herman Law took out a loan in 2021 from a Delaware-registered company affiliated with Deer Finance, according to a loan notice. The firm said they use traditional bank loans for “overall operations.”

Herman Law is the most prolific filer of county sex abuse cases outside of L.A. County since the state changed the statute of limitations.

Herman Law has filed about half of these roughly 800 sex abuse lawsuits that have been brought outside of L.A. County, according to data reviewed by The Times.

Herman Law has sued several tiny counties, where public officials say they’ve been inundated with advertisements on social media and TV looking for plaintiffs. Some counties say they threw out relevant records long ago and have no way to tell if the alleged victim was ever in local custody.

A judge fined Herman Law about $9,500 last month for failing to dismiss Kings County from a lawsuit despite presenting no evidence the county ever had custody of the victim, calling the claim “factually frivolous” and “objectively unreasonable.” An attorney for Herman Law said in a court filing the client believed she’d been in a foster home there, and the lack of records didn’t conclusively establish anything.

“There are not records. There’s nothing that exists,” said Jason Britt, the county administrative officer for Tulare County, which has been sued at least eight times by Herman Law. “Counties at some point are not gonna be able to operate because you’re essentially going to bankrupt them.”

The firm said its clients are always its top priority.

“No lender or financial relationship has ever influenced, directed or played any role in legal strategy, client decisions or case outcomes, including any matters involving the Los Angeles County,” the firm said. “Herman Law’s work is driven solely by our mission to advocate for survivors in their pursuit of justice and healing.”

Joseph Nicchitta, L.A. County’s acting chief executive officer, said he believed the region’s social safety net was now “an investment opportunity.” In an October letter to the State Bar, he called out the “explosive growth” of claims, arguing a handful of firms were “competing to bring as many cases as possible” to the detriment of their existing clients.

He estimated that attorney fees in the lawsuit would amount to more than $1 billion. “It begs reform,” he wrote.

The Visalia Unified School District’s public board meeting in March was a festive and upbeat affair with a performance by a student chamber music group and a commendation for a high school cheer squad.

When the seven-member board went into closed session, the agenda was decidedly grimmer: Six former students were suing the district over sexual abuse they said they suffered decades earlier at the hands of a kindergarten teacher.

Out of public view, the board unanimously approved a $3-million settlement with provisions intended to keep the community in the dark forever.

Under the terms of the agreement, the women, their lawyers and families were prohibited from disclosing any aspect of the deal, including the amount they were paid.

“The Parties agree that they will respond to any inquiries they may receive from any third parties regarding the lawsuit by stating only that ‘the matter has been resolved’ without any further elaboration, discussion or disclosure,” the settlement instructed.

It was Visalia’s fifth secret settlement in the last three years, one of a flurry that districts are quietly approving statewide.

A Times investigation found that California’s public schools, faced with a historic surge of sex abuse lawsuits, are increasingly using nondisclosure agreements and other tactics that celebrities and big corporations rely upon to protect their reputation.

At least 25 districts have resolved suits or other claims in ways that hinder taxpayers from learning about the allegations, the cost of settling them or both, The Times found. These hidden settlements total more than $53 million. Legal experts say that these settlements may be in violation of state law, and that some should be investigated by the state attorney general.

While shielding the names and identifying details of sex abuse victims is widely accepted, courts have repeatedly said the public has a right to know allegations leveled against government employees and the money spent to compensate accusers.

Lawmakers in California have also largely banned the use of confidentiality provisions for settlements involving sexual assault and harassment, on the belief that transparency helps victims heal and leads to public accountability.

“There’s very significant problems with government agencies acting like private companies and requesting or insisting on these kinds of nondisclosure or non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, based in San Rafael. “Because at the end of the day, the government works for the people and the people have a very compelling interest in knowing about claims and allegations of misconduct.”

California’s school districts are now grappling with a deluge of sex abuse cases resulting from a 2019 law that changed the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse and created a new window — from 2020 to 2022 — in which anyone could file a lawsuit for past alleged abuse.

The Times identified more than 1,000 lawsuits against school districts filed since 2020, with more than 750 filed due to the new law. Some lawsuits allege abuse as far back as the 1950s. Most cases are still making their way through the courts, but more than 330 have settled for roughly $700 million, with $435 million paid out for claims related to the new law. The state projects that local education agencies will ultimately pay out between $2 billion and $3 billion once cases work through the court system. Much of this is taking place outside the public eye.

In Visalia, confidentiality clauses negotiated by district lawyers acknowledged the public’s right to obtain the information — and then attempted to make sure they never would. Four agreements specifically barred former students receiving secret payouts from “directly or indirectly” encouraging others to file a request under the state Public Records Act — the method The Times used to review copies of agreements referenced in this story.

A spokesperson for Visalia Unified declined an interview request, and the school district did not answer written questions.

Anaheim Union High School District paid three men, who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher, $3.3 million in 2023.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Several districts attempted to prevent allegations from becoming public by paying off accusers before they filed lawsuits that would have detailed the claims of sex abuse for anyone to see.

Anaheim Union High School District paid a trio of men who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher $3.3 million in 2023 after their attorney sent the district a draft of a lawsuit he said he was prepared to file in Superior Court.

The terms of the payout two years ago required that the men and their lawyers “not seek publicity relating to the facts and circumstances giving rise” to their claims, and indeed, the settlements have not been previously reported.

John Bautista, a spokesperson for Anaheim Union, said in a statement that the district and its insurer settled the draft lawsuits after going through discovery in a related case and “did not want to incur additional expenses of filing a lawsuit.”

“Nothing in the agreement would prevent the claimant/plaintiff from speaking with the press concerning the facts of the case if the press contacted [them],” Bautista said.

At least one district paid an accuser before anything was put in writing, records show. Victor Elementary School District in the High Desert negotiated a $350,000 settlement with one former student after his lawyer relayed abuse allegations in a phone call. Asked by The Times for a document describing the claimed misconduct, a district official said no such records existed.

Some districts suggest the confidentiality restrictions are needed to avoid a “snowball effect” of further litigation.

San Diego Unified, hit by more than a dozen lawsuits over alleged sex abuse since 2020, has settled four for a total of $2.44 million, each with a confidentiality clause that, at a minimum, prevents the accuser or her lawyer from disclosing the settlement amount. One of the settlements blocks the accuser from discussing the matter with anyone except her lawyer or financial advisor or in response to a subpoena.

San Diego officials acknowledged that confidentiality is ultimately limited — the documents can be disclosed via public records requests — but the district proceeded with pursuing restrictions on the accusers and their representatives.

“The purpose is to keep plaintiffs’ lawyers from using these settlements as marketing tools,” said James Canning, a spokesman for San Diego Unified.

Former state Sen. Connie Leyva, seen here while in the Legislature in 2019, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions. “That sounds illegal,” Leyva said.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Efforts to curb the use of secret settlements gained momentum in the 1980s, with growing public awareness of how confidentiality agreements had kept the public in the dark about environmental or health hazards, such as asbestos.

In 2016, California prohibited settlement agreements that block the disclosure of factual information about sexual abuse or any sex offense that could be prosecuted as a felony.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, lawmakers in 2018 passed the STAND Act, which prohibits nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, discrimination and other sexual assault cases that don’t rise to felony prosecution. Three years later, the Silenced No More Act widened the prohibition on nondisclosure agreements to include any harassment case. The law still gives victims the option to protect their identity.

The lead sponsor of both bills, former state Sen. Connie Leyva, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions.

“That sounds illegal,” said Leyva, now the executive director of public radio and TV station KVCR. “We did not speak specifically about children or about schools, but it shouldn’t be happening.” She added, “Our bill was meant to apply to everyone everywhere.”

Several settlement agreements obtained by The Times included caveats by stating they were “confidential to the extent allowed by law,” or contained similar carve-outs. Experts said such provisos still have the effect of muzzling a victim’s speech and hindering public accountability.

“While it’s possible that these work-arounds don’t violate the letter of the STAND Act, they certainly violate its spirit,” said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law School, who co-authored a study on the effect of the STAND Act in L.A. courts.

Southern Kern Unified School District agreed to pay $600,000 to a former student who alleged sex abuse and included an acknowledgment of the STAND Act in the agreement. Still, the settlement bars the former student, Corey Neufer, from “actively” publicizing the deal.

Reached by phone, Neufer said that although he deliberately chose to sue under his own name, rather than as John Doe, he was told that the confidentiality provision was standard and necessary for the final settlement.

“That was one of the stipulations — that I don’t speak about it or give any details,” said Neufer, who indicated the confidentiality was far broader than the text of his settlement suggests. “My lawyer instructed me to not talk about the case.”

The STAND Act allows for plaintiffs or claimants to put language in a settlement agreement that shields their identity and disclosure of any facts that could lead to their identity. However, if a public official or government agency — such as a school district — is part of the settlement, that language cannot be included.

Of the dozens of settlements reviewed by The Times, two specifically noted that the accuser wanted confidentiality to shield their identity.

Several had restrictions that appeared to exceed the STAND Act, such as a 2024 settlement for $787,500 paid by Ceres Unified to a custodian who said she was sexually harassed by a colleague. The signed agreement states that the settlement, its terms and any belief that the district or its employees engaged in unlawful behavior were all confidential. If asked, the custodian could only say, “The matter has been resolved.”

David Viss, an assistant superintendent at Ceres Unified, said in an email that the agreement complied with the law: “We believe the settlement agreement is consistent with the STAND Act.”

The overwhelming majority of sex abuse cases filed against school districts reach a settlement. For districts, a settlement can be more cost-effective than mounting a legal defense through a jury trial, and unlike a panel of jurors, a settlement provides a level of fiscal certainty. At times, the decision to settle is driven less by school board members than an insurance company or liability coverage provider.

John Manly, whose law firm specializes in childhood sex abuse, said school districts and their insurance providers frequently ask for confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when negotiating a payout.

Lawyer John Manly, seen at his law offices in Irvine in 2023, has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years. He says that confidentiality agreements “benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We get these requests all the time, and we decline,” Manly said. “Confidentiality agreements benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

At Los Angeles Unified School District, scores of people accused former San Fernando High School wrestling coach Terry Gillard of abuse. In 2022, LAUSD agreed to pay 23 accusers a total of $52 million to settle molestation and abuse claims — a settlement negotiated by Manly’s law firm.

A year later, LAUSD agreed to pay three other women who alleged abuse by Gillard a total of $7.5 million.

Although those represented by Manly’s team did not have a confidentiality or non-disparagement agreement in their settlement, LAUSD sought an extensive confidentiality agreement for the payout to the three other women, curtailing discussion of the settlement and underlying abuse claims.

That settlement barred their lawyer from making any sort of statement — or encouraging others to make a statement — about the compensation deal, and barred comments that could “defame, disparage or in any way criticize” LAUSD, its employees and leaders.

Only the women, their lawyer, “immediate family” and “tax professional” could know about the settlement, according to the agreement.

“If asked about the status of this dispute, plaintiffs counsel may only state, ‘they have voluntarily and fully resolved their claims against the Los Angeles Unified School District,’ or words to that effect,” declares the settlement agreement.

The lawyer for the women, Anthony DeMarco, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Manly said the State Bar of California should investigate lawyers on both sides who agree to language that they know conflicts with state law. And he called on Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into such restrictive agreements.

“It’s wrong. It’s bad for the community and it’s bad for the victim. The lawyers that do it — defense and plaintiff — should be ashamed of themselves.”

L.A. Unified, which has added confidentiality provisions in at least seven settlements since 2020, defended its practices as a way to amicably resolve litigation, according to a statement from a spokesperson.

“These settlement agreements keep the settlement details, such as the amount, confidential. They do not prohibit the disclosure of the facts behind the claims,” the LAUSD spokesperson said.

Some legal experts want Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into restrictive nondisclosure agreements.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

While several districts use secrecy provisions in settlement agreements to hide the details of sex abuse cases, others, like Visalia Unified, also are able to keep payouts quiet by approving them in closed session at regular school board meetings.

In 2021, the president of the board of Wasco Union High School District received a letter from a lawyer based in Iowa who represented a former Wasco student. The lawyer said his client had been sexually abused nearly a decade earlier by her former coach and teacher, and accused her then-principal, Kevin Tallon, among others, of not taking appropriate steps when confronted with evidence of abuse.

Tallon, now Wasco’s superintendent, was named as a defendant in the draft lawsuit, and the lawyer included a copy. He gave the district 14 business days to respond.

“If I do not hear back from you, I will proceed with the lawsuit,” wrote the lawyer, Thomas Burke.

The letter touched off a negotiation that culminated at the Wasco school board’s final meeting of 2021. The meeting’s agenda for the closed session was circumspect: “Conference with Legal Counsel — Settlement Agreement.” But behind closed doors, the board voted 5 to 0 to approve a settlement, according to meeting minutes, ensuring that there would probably never be a public airing of the allegations against the teacher or superintendent. The meeting minutes reflect only that a settlement was approved — not the amount or nature of the abuse accusations. The district paid $475,000 in the settlement, a sum that The Times obtained via records request.

Tallon, the superintendent who was named in the draft lawsuit, declined an interview but provided written responses to questions. He said the district and its staff “fulfilled its duties diligently and with integrity,” and said the settlement was approved in a way that adhered to the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

“The settlement was not intended to conceal allegations; it was meant to responsibly limit risk and bring closure to a sensitive situation,” Tallon said in the statement.

Legal experts agreed that Wasco’s school board complied with the Brown Act — thereby exposing that law’s limits and potential loopholes. Since the threat of litigation did not result in a filed case or formal claim, the board could treat it as “anticipated litigation” and discuss it in closed session, away from the public. And since settlement offers — like any contract negotiation — are not final until agreed upon, they too can be approved in closed session, away from the public.

Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the Brown Act could be amended to proactively require public agencies to ultimately disclose the details and amounts of settlements. School districts, he added, could also opt to be more open, without being compelled to by state lawmakers.

“Agencies owe a duty to the public to be more proactive and more transparent, even than the bare minimum letter of the law might allow them to get away with,” Loy said.

The lack of transparency also coincides with a crisis in local news, which has resulted in far less coverage of city halls, courthouses and school boards from the Imperial Valley to the shores of Eureka.

At one time, newspapers big and small had reporters at school board meetings who probably would have noticed settlements on the agenda and submitted records requests to reveal them.

With local media absent, agencies have quietly approved settlements in closed session, with no watchdog to suss out the underlying facts.

“Diligent people or reporters know to do that: Please give me copies of every settlement approved this week or this month,” said Loy, the First Amendment Coalition’s legal director. “But that requires an extra step.”