A Los Angeles federal jury on Tuesday found Tom Girardi, the disbarred California attorney, guilty of four counts of wire fraud after US prosecutors accused him of stealing $15m in settlement funds from clients, prosecutors said.
Girardi, 85, whose pollution case against a California utility inspired the Oscar-winning film Erin Brockovich, was accused of deceiving his clients and pilfering from settlement funds they had obtained in personal injury cases.
Girardi blamed the alleged fraud on Christopher Kamon, the former chief financial officer of their law firm, Girardi Keese. Girardi’s lawyers have also argued that their client suffers from dementia.
A spokesperson for the US attorney’s office confirmed the verdict but did not comment further. Girardi’s federal public defenders did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Kamon was charged with wire fraud in Los Angeles alongside Girardi but will be tried separately in January. Kamon is also facing separate charges that he embezzled $10m from Girardi Keese, which he then allegedly spent on extensive home remodeling, exotic sports cars and an escort. Kamon has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Girardi was a prominent figure in the US plaintiffs bar before allegations that he defrauded clients upended his career in 2020 and cost him his law license. He is the estranged husband of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Erika Jayne Girardi.
Prosecutors in a separate criminal case in Chicago have accused Tom Girardi, Kamon and David Lira – Girardi’s son-in-law who also worked at Girardi Keese – of misappropriating more than $3m in client funds owed to families of the victims of the 2018 Boeing 737 Max Lion Air flight 610 crash in Indonesia.
Girardi, Kamon and Lira have pleaded not guilty to the Chicago charges.
Josephine Staton, the US district judge who oversaw the Los Angeles trial, ruled earlier this year that Girardi was competent to stand trial despite his lawyers’ dementia claims. Girardi’s lawyer in Chicago has argued that Staton’s competency ruling is not binding on the Illinois case.
