Paradis Lost

A criminal conviction has led to disbarment by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The Disciplinary Review Board described the offense

In or around fall of 2014, respondent’s law firm, Paradis Law Group, PLLC, received inquiries from customers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (the DWP) concerning potential litigation stemming from the DWP’s billing system, which incorrectly had billed hundreds of thousands of customers and resulted in multiple class action lawsuits against both the DWP and the City of Los Angeles (the City).

In or around December 2014, Antwon Jones retained respondent to represent him in connection with a potential lawsuit concerning the DWP billing practices.

On December 16, 2014, respondent and another California attorney, Paul Kiesel, Esq., with whom respondent was acquainted, met with two officials from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office (the CAO) to discuss obtaining the City’s help with a potential lawsuit, on behalf of Jones, against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC), the vendor for the DWP billing system. During that meeting, respondent and Kiesel agreed to represent the City in a lawsuit against PWC. Respondent informed the CAO official that he also represented Jones for the purpose of potential litigation related to the DWP billing system.

In January and February 2015, respondent, Kiesel, and the CAO pursued a parallel litigation strategy, which entailed respondent and Kiesel representing both the City and Jones in contemporaneous lawsuits against PWC. The parallel litigation strategy required convincing the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the existing class action lawsuits against the City to dismiss their claims and to join the City in a coordinated lawsuit against PWC. In furtherance of the parallel litigation, respondent drafted a complaint, on behalf of Jones, against PWC (hereinafter Jones v. PWC) and circulated it among the members of the CAO for their review and comment. In late February 2015, members from the CAO informed respondent that the City no longer intended to proceed with the parallel litigation strategy.

On February 23, 2015, respondent, Kiesel, and respondent’s partner met with at least one member of the CAO to discuss how the City intended to proceed in lieu of the abandoned parallel litigation strategy. At the meeting, respondent and Kiesel were directed and authorized to find outside counsel that was friendly to the City and its litigation goals, who would then purport to represent Jones in a class action lawsuit against the City. The new strategy was dubbed the “white knight strategy” to reflect the understanding that this plaintiff would not be adverse to the City’s goals and would allow the City to orchestrate a collusive lawsuit for the purpose of quickly settling all existing DWP claims on terms favorable to the City. Respondent and Kiesel would continue to prepare the City’s anticipated lawsuit against PWC.

On February 25, 2015, in furtherance of the white knight strategy, respondent contacted an Ohio attorney (the Ohio Attorney), with whom he was acquainted, and asked him to “play the role” of the attorney representing Jones, and the other class members, in the lawsuit against the City (hereinafter Jones v. City). Respondent explained to the Ohio Attorney that the case would be “pre-settled” on the City’s desired terms. Respondent explained that he would do all the work in the case in exchange for twenty percent of the Ohio Attorney’s legal fees. The Ohio Attorney agreed to this scheme.

A lawsuit was filed

From the outset, respondent and the Ohio Attorney agreed to maximize the counsel fee award for their mutual benefit. At respondent’s direction, the Ohio Attorney submitted falsified billing records reflecting that he had commenced work on the Jones v. City matter in November 2014 when, in fact, he had not become involved in the scheme until February 2015. The falsified billing records included hundreds of hours of work which the Ohio Attorney did not perform, including the drafting of pleadings, conducting discovery, and engaging in legal analysis and strategy.

On July 20, 2017, relying on the false representations made by the Ohio Attorney – which respondent knew to be false – the Los Angeles Superior Court judge overseeing the Jones v. City matter granted final approval of the settlement agreement, including an attorneys’ fee award of approximately $19 million, of which the Ohio Attorney received approximately $10.3 million. In July 2017, respondent reminded the Ohio Attorney of their prior agreement that respondent would receive twenty percent of the Ohio Attorney’s share of the  awarded fees, totaling $2.175 million. Respondent and the Ohio Attorney then agreed they would each form a shell company to facilitate and conceal the illegal “kickback” payment.

Further

Over the course of the three bribery schemes, respondent and his companies amassed approximately $24 million. In or around March 2019, respondent began cooperating extensively with law enforcement and engaged in approximately 184 “undercover operations.”

On November 19, 2021, respondent signed a forty-six-page plea agreement, in which he agreed to plead guilty to an information filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that he committed the felony of bribery in federally funded programs, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). On January 28, 2022, respondent pleaded guilty to the sole count of the information.

On November 7, 2023, Judge Blumenfeld sentenced respondent to thirty-three-month term of incarceration, followed by a three-year term of supervised release, with conditions.

Respondent has been disbarred in New York.

LA Times described the sentencing

[Judge] Blumenfeld, in imposing sentence, cited Paradis’ long legal career. He said that Paradis, an aggressive plaintiff’s attorney from New York, had a “keen” intellect and was “blessed with charm and charisma.”

But ultimately, Paradis went down a path of corruption. “Mr. Paradis was at the center” of a “greedy and corrupt” scheme, Blumenfeld said.

Paradis, in his remarks to the judge, expressed remorse. He wept as Blumenfeld talked about Paradis’ difficult childhood.

(Mike Frisch)