Michael’s representative criminal experience includes:

• Corporate internal investigations performed in the following sectors:  motion picture studios; streaming platforms; Silicon Valley/technology companies; public utilities.  The investigations have involved all manner of subject matters, including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act allegations, securities law allegations, sexual harassment/misconduct allegations, campaign finance allegations, and allegations of fraud.  Clients have included the company/Board of Directors, the Audit Committee, and Special Committees.

• Representation of corporations, public entities, and individuals in hundreds of federal and local investigations and filed cases, including: 

  • Several representations of nursing homes and board and care facilities in actions and investigations relating to allegedly negligent homicide; 

  • Representation of a major health care insurer in a federal investigation concerning allegations of fraud;

  • Representation of a major non-profit in a tax fraud matter;

  • Bribery and fraud case against Los Angeles County Tax Assessor; and

  • Manslaughter case against organizers of spiritual sweat lodge in Arizona, resulting in the deaths of three participants. 

• Representation of one of Los Angeles’s most prominent public servants in a widely publicized bribery case.  United States v. Mark Ridley-Thomas, et al., Case No. 2:21-cr-00485-DSF (C.D. Cal.).

• Representation of the head of PG&E’s electrical transmission and distribution grid during the 2018 wildfire season.  The Camp Fire, and many others, were determined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to be caused by PG&E.  People v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Case No. 20CF01422 (Butte County Superior Court); United States v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Case No. CR 14-00175 WHA (N. D. Cal.).  The criminal investigations were conducted by the California Attorney General, the Butte County District Attorney’s Office, and several other California counties.  Representation extended to civil litigation arising from the same facts.  

• Representation in a major Southern California campaign money laundering case involving Presidential Candidate John Edwards and Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn, pursued by both the United States Attorney’s Office and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

• Representation of now-former General Counsel of Southern California Edison in parallel criminal investigation (California Attorney General) and administrative proceedings (CPUC) relating to alleged ex parte communications between representatives of Edison and the CPUC. 

• Representation of a C-suite officer of major Southern California utility with respect to parallel criminal investigations (United States Attorney’s Office and California Attorney General/local District Attorney) arising out of activities relating to power plant. 

• Representation of one of the more prominent individuals charged in the “Varsity Blues” college admissions scandal.  United States v. Jane Buckingham, Case No. 19-cr-10117-3 (D. Mass.).

• Representation of a government contractor and its principals in an anti-kickback investigation by the Department of Justice arising from government contracts to modernize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s information technology infrastructure.  Michael also represented the company and its principals in a related civil litigation involving novel questions about the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the context of civil discovery.  See KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2018). 

• Representation of a significant uncharged party in the criminal investigation and prosecution by the Santa Barbara District Attorney and California Attorney General arising out of the 2015 Refugio oil spill near Santa Barbara, as well as in a parallel federal investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office. 

• Representation of a spouse charged with “harboring a fugitive,” by aiding her husband who had fled the United States after being indicted.  A landmark decision resulted in dismissal of the charges.  United States v. Bahna, 413 F.Supp.2d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 2005).

• Successful representation of a prisoner in proceedings seeking compassionate release.  The client had 79 months remaining of his 240-month sentence when Michael was retained.  Within two months, the client was released from BOP custody, and is serving the remainder of his sentence out of custody in a home detention situation.  United States v. Heckster, Case No. CR-09-00998-SI (N. D. Cal.) (U.S.D.C.).

• Representation of Los Angeles youth basketball coach Gary Franklin, the chief victim of Michael Avenatti, in an extortion scheme.  The case resulted in Mr. Avenatti being convicted, and Mr. Franklin being vindicated.  United States v. Michael Avenatti, Case No. CR 19-373 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.) (U.S.D.C.).

• Twenty-three-year representation of Joel Lopez, an immigrant to this country in 1973, who the United States tried to deport and convict multiple times from 1998 to the present.  Joel Lopez-Loera v. Holder, 667 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 2012); Joel Lopez-Loera v. Thomas J Schiltgen, et al., Case No. CV 02-04286-ABC-CW; United States v. Joel Lopez-Loera, Case No. CR 98-1047-ABC.  See also “One Reason I Do What I Do,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 7, 2021). 

• Representation of a prominent Boro Park, New York rabbi of the Hasidic Judaism faith, who refused to testify before the grand jury because to do so would violate his religious faith under the rabbinic doctrine of mesirah.  Extensive contempt proceeding in the United States District Court.  In re Moshe Zigelman, under seal matter (C.D. Cal.) (U.S.D.C.).

• Representation of Deborah Canter, the probation and bankruptcy petitioner who got caught in the center of a series of controversial orders by Judge Manuel L. Real, which resulted in a lengthy and contested disciplinary trial against Judge Real in the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit.  Michael represented Ms. Canter in related proceedings before the United States Congress’s House Committee on the Judiciary.  In re Complaint Judicial Misconduct, 425 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2005).

• Appointed as Independent Prosecutor by the United States District Court, with a mandate to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecuted charges against the United States Attorney’s Office and certain Assistant United States Attorneys for submitting materially false declarations/testimony to the Court.  Appointment and investigation lasted just under two years and resulted in sustained contempt order and sanctions.  United States v. Stovall, CR 02-00507-JSL (C.D. Cal.) (U.S.D.C.).