To The Honorable Yvette D. Roland, Supervising Hearing Judge of The State Bar Court

1 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

2 MELANIE J. LAWRENCE, No. 230102
INTERIM CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
3 ANTHONY J. GARCIA, No. 171419
ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
4 ANAND KUMAR, No. 261592
SUPERVISING ATTORNEY
5 ELI D. MORGENSTERN, No. 190560
SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL
6 845 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017-2515
7 Telephone: (213) 765-1334
8
9 STATE BAR COURT

10 HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES
11
12 In the Matter of: ) Case No. SBC-19-TE-30259-YDR

)
13 MICHAEL JOHN AVENATTI, ) STATUS REPORT
State Bar No. 206929, )
14 )
) Status Conference: June 8, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.
15 An Attorney of the State Bar. )
16
17 TO THE HONORABLE YVETTE D. ROLAND, SUPERVISING HEARING

18 JUDGE OF THE STATE BAR COURT:
19 The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (“State Bar”), through
20 Senior Trial Counsel Eli D. Morgenstern, hereby submits this status report pursuant to the
21 Court’s May 28, 2020 Order, and in conjunction with the June 8, 2020 status conference.
22 Brief Chronology Of Relevant Events
23 On January 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the Central District of
24 California, in the matter titled United States of America v. Michael John Avenatti, Case No. 19-
25 00061-JVS (“California criminal matter”), ordered respondent Michael John Avenatti’s
26 immediate transfer to the custody of the Southern District of New York for his trial in another
27 criminal matter titled United States of America v. Michael John Avenatti, Case No. 19-cr-373
28 (“Nike extortion matter”).
-1-
1 On February 14, 2020, respondent was convicted in the Nike extortion matter.
2 On March 17, 2020, these proceedings were abated due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
3 Consequently, the previously scheduled March 23, 2020 status conference was taken off
4 calendar.
5 On April 27, 2020, the Court in the California criminal matter filed an Order setting forth
6 the conditions of respondent’s temporary release from federal custody for a period of 90 days.
7 Currently, respondent is in the custody of a third party and under house arrest in Venice,
8 California. Pursuant to the Court’s orders, respondent “shall not possess, use, or access any
9 digital devices that offer or allow internet access.”
10 Since May 4, 2020, respondent has been on interim suspension status pursuant to the
11 Review Department’s Order in Case No. SBC-20-C-30155, a conviction referral matter, which
12 arises out of respondent’s conviction in the Nike extortion trial.
13 The State Bar Proposes That These Proceedings Go Forward By Way Of
14 Declaration; And That Respondent’s Counsel Be Permitted To Complete Their Cross
15 Examination Of Greg Barela Via Zoom
16 At the March 2, 2020 status conference, respondent’s counsel indicated that if respondent
17 was not incarcerated and able to continue to appear at these proceedings, respondent anticipated
18 that he would: (1) complete his cross examination of complaining witness Greg Barela;
19 (2) permit the State Bar to complete its cross-examination of him; (3) testify on his own behalf;
20 and (4) call Messrs. Stephen Ross, Ahmed Ibrahim, and John Arden as witnesses.
21 In light of the fact that respondent is presently in the custody of a third party in Venice,
22 California, and in the interest of completing these expedited proceedings so that the Court may
23 issue its Decision in this matter, the State Bar proposes the following:
24 (1) Respondent file a declaration signed under penalty of perjury with the Court
25 in lieu of his live testimony, a procedure authorized by Rule 5.230(A)1 of the

26 Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, and something respondent is
27 1
Rule 5.230(A) provides, in pertinent part, “At a hearing, evidence will be received by
declaration, request for judicial notice, and transcripts.” (Italics added.)
28
-2-
1 presumably able to do now that he has access to Mr. Barela’s file;2
2 (2) Respondent file declarations signed under penalty of perjury by Messrs. Ross,
3 Abrahim, and Arden (collectively, “witnesses”) in lieu of their live testimony,
4 a procedure authorized by Rule 5.230(A) of the Rules of Procedure of the
5 State Bar of California.
6 The State Bar will waive cross examination of respondent and his witnesses, provided
7 that the State Bar is given an opportunity to present evidence in the form of declaration(s) of
8 witness(es) in response to the declarations submitted by respondent, a procedure similarly
9 authorized by Rule 5.230(A) of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. (See also,
10 rule 5.230(B), Rules Proc. of State Bar [providing that “any additional proposed evidence”
11 beyond the State Bar’s 6007(c) Application can be presented at hearing upon proper service to
12 opposing party.])
13 Further, the State Bar will agree to make Mr. Barela available by Zoom so that
14 respondent’s counsel may complete his cross-examination of him, and the State Bar may
15 conduct its re-direct examination. (Cf. Conway v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1107, 1118 [“[t]he
16 right of confrontation is not a necessary component of due process in the present context [a
17 section 6007(c)(2) proceeding]”].)3

18 2
On June 20, 2019, respondent filed his Opposition to the State Bar’s Application For
Involuntary Inactive Enrollment. In his response, respondent stated that he did not have access
19 to Mr. Barela’s file because the Government had seized the file in connection with the California
criminal matter. Consequently, his responses to the allegations in the State Bar’s Application
20 were “based on limited current recollection.” (Response, p. 1:20.) However, respondent has had
possession of Mr. Barela’s file for several months now. Presumably, he is now in a position to
21 augment his response as he indicated he would do. (Response, p. 1:19-21.)
22 3
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, the State Bar also requests this Court to take judicial
notice of its January 14, 2020 proposal to the parties and judicial file in the instant matter. In
23 particular, on January 14, 2020, the Court sua sponte proposed to the parties to take the matter
under submission based on the initial pleadings ﬁled by the parties and the evidence attached to
24 them, as well as the oral and documentary evidence introduced at the December 18, 2019, and
January 14, 2020 hearings, so that the Court may issue its decision as to whether the State Bar
25 provided sufﬁcient evidence to the Court to prove each of the three factors required by Business
and Professions Code section 6007(c)(2). Notably, at the time of this Court’s January 14, 2020
26 proposal, neither the State Bar nor respondent’s counsel had completed their respective
examinations of respondent and Mr. Barela, corroborating the State Bar’s position that this Court
27 is currently in a position, and has been in a position, to issue a decision based on the available
evidence before it for more than four months without any further testimony. By making the
28 January 14, 2020 proposal to the parties, this Court essentially acknowledged that no further
-3-
1 Respectfully submitted,
2 THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
3
4 DATED: June 3, 2020 By:

Eli D. Morgenstern
5 Senior Trial Counsel
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 testimony was/is necessary to reach a decision as to the merits of the State Bar’s Corrected
Application, because this Court would not have otherwise entertained—let alone, made—the
28 proposal to resolve the instant matter without further testimony.
-4-
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
CASE NUMBER(s): SBC-19-TE-30259 – YDR (OCTC Case No. 19-TE-16715)
I, the undersigned, am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action, whose business address and place of employment is the State Bar of
California, 845 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90017, Kathi.Palacios@calbar.ca.gov, declare that:
- on the date shown below, I caused to be served a true copy of the within document described as follows:
STATUS REPORT
By U.S. First-Class Mail: (CCP §§ 1013 and 1013(a)) By U.S. Certified Mail: (CCP §§ 1013 and 1013(a))
- in accordance with the practice of the State Bar of California for collection and processing of mail, I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in the City and County
- of Los Angeles.
By Overnight Delivery: (CCP §§ 1013(c) and 1013(d))

- I am readily familiar with the State Bar of California’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for overnight delivery by the United Parcel Service ('UPS').
By Fax Transmission: (CCP §§ 1013(e) and 1013(f))

Based on agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed herein below. No error was
reported by the fax machine that I used. The original record of the fax transmission is retained on file and available upon request.
By Electronic Service: (CCP § 1010.6)

Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic
addresses listed herein below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
(for U.S. First-Class Mail) in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing at Los Angeles, addressed to: (see below)
(for Certified Mail) in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing as certified mail, return receipt requested,
Article No.: at Los Angeles, addressed to: (see below)
(for Overnight Delivery) together with a copy of this declaration, in an envelope, or package designated by UPS,
Tracking No.: addressed to: (see below)
Person Served Business Address Electronic Address Courtesy Copy to:
Ellen A. Pansky, PANSKY MARKLE Attorneys at Law epansky@panskymarkle.com;

Thomas Warren, WARREN TERZIAN LLP; tom.warren@warrenterzian.com;
Daniel Dubin, WARREN TERZIAN LLP daniel.dubin@warrenterzian.com
via inter-office mail regularly processed and maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:
N/A
I am readily familiar with the State Bar of California's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and
overnight delivery by the United Parcel Service ('UPS'). In the ordinary course of the State Bar of California's practice, correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of
California would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day, and for overnight delivery, deposited with delivery fees paid or provided for, with UPS that same
day.
I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope or package is more than one day
after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: June 3, 2020 SIGNED:

Kathi Palacios
Declarant
State Bar of California

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

To The Honorable Yvette D. Roland, Supervising Hearing Judge of The State Bar Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

To The Honorable Yvette D. Roland, Supervising Hearing Judge of The State Bar Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

To The Honorable Yvette D. Roland, Supervising Hearing Judge of The State Bar Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

9 STATE BAR COURT

12 In the Matter of: ) Case No. SBC-19-TE-30259-YDR

17 TO THE HONORABLE YVETTE D. ROLAND, SUPERVISING HEARING

9 digital devices that offer or allow internet access.”

12 arises out of respondent’s conviction in the Nike extortion trial.

13 The State Bar Proposes That These Proceedings Go Forward By Way Of

14 Declaration; And That Respondent’s Counsel Be Permitted To Complete Their Cross

15 Examination Of Greg Barela Via Zoom

25 in lieu of his live testimony, a procedure authorized by Rule 5.230(A)1 of the

3 Abrahim, and Arden (collectively, “witnesses”) in lieu of their live testimony,

4 a procedure authorized by Rule 5.230(A) of the Rules of Procedure of the

5 State Bar of California.

8 witness(es) in response to the declarations submitted by respondent, a procedure similarly

17 section 6007(c)(2) proceeding]”].)3

4 DATED: June 3, 2020 By:

CASE NUMBER(s): SBC-19-TE-30259 – YDR (OCTC Case No. 19-TE-16715)

By Overnight Delivery: (CCP §§ 1013(c) and 1013(d))

By Fax Transmission: (CCP §§ 1013(e) and 1013(f))

By Electronic Service: (CCP § 1010.6)

Person Served Business Address Electronic Address Courtesy Copy to:

Ellen A. Pansky, PANSKY MARKLE Attorneys at Law epansky@panskymarkle.com;

DATED: June 3, 2020 SIGNED:

State Bar of California

You might also like