Concerns arise as LA County finalizes $828 million rape settlement

L.A. County supervisors unanimously approved an $828 million settlement for alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse, finalizing the deal even as questions remain over the legitimacy of some claims in a separate billion-dollar settlement they agreed to this spring.

The settlement approved Tuesday brings the county’s cost of sexual assault cases to nearly $5 billion this year, with the bulk of that total coming from a $4 billion settlement in April to settle thousands of claims filed by people who said they were abused decades ago in county-run juvenile detention centers and foster homes.

The latest settlement includes similar claims brought by 414 clients of three law firms who chose to negotiate separately from the rest. The $4 billion settlement initially covered about 6,800 claims, but has grown to more than 11,000.

The large settlement came under scrutiny after the Times found nine people who said they were paid for the lawsuit. Four said they were told to falsify the claims. All were filed by the Downtown LA Law Group, which represented more than 2,700 clients in the first settlement.

The company has denied paying customers to file lawsuits and said it “has systems in place to help remove false or exaggerated charges.” The company asked the court to dismiss three claims this month on behalf of plaintiffs who allegedly defrauded them.

The city’s legal team will be required to detail any claims it receives through employers, the county’s top attorney said Tuesday. The company has denied any wrongdoing.

(Carlene Steele/Los Angeles Times)

The settlement approved Tuesday includes only cases from Arias Sangeniti Wang & Tim, Manley, Stewart & Finaldi, and Paneesh Shea Ravipudi and no cases from DTLA. But the company still took center stage Tuesday as observers pressed its top attorney on how to handle the case.

“What were we doing before this article?” Supervisor Catherine Barger said, citing a Times report earlier this month.

The county was in a tough spot, County Attorney Davin Harrison explained. Many plaintiffs’ attorneys did not want the county to interview their clients, she said. And a judge temporarily halted the discovery process, providing the county with little insight into the identities of thousands of people.

Harrison said Tuesday that DTLA cases now need to go through a “whole new level of review” beyond the standard review that was previously conducted by retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Louis Messinger. In addition to having new Retired Supreme Court Judge In all of their cases, DTLA must provide the county with information about plaintiffs obtained through “a recruiter or vendor.”

“The DTLA requires identifying each recruiter that it uses, a list of each recruiter who was brought in with each recruiter, information about any funds that changed hands, and a sworn statement from each recruiter stating what was done, what was said, and what money was paid,” Harrison said.

This is an unusual request.

California the law Prohibits a practice known as capping, in which non-attorneys directly solicit or buy clients to sign on with a law firm for litigation.

DTLA has denied notice that it received money from its customers for the lawsuit, saying the company wants “justice for the real victims” of sexual assault.

“If we ever become aware that anyone associated with us, in any capacity, is engaging in such conduct, we will immediately terminate our relationship with them,” the company said.

The series of cases was triggered by the now-controversial law known as AB 218, which changed the statute of limitations for rape victims and created a new window for prosecution. The county, which is responsible for the safety of children in pediatric cancer centers and foster care, has seen more than 12,000 claims and counting since the law took effect in 2020..

Allegations of fraud now hanging in those cases were the fault of the “irregular law,” not the country’s vetting process, Harrison said.

“AB 218 removed those safeguards and allowed decades-old claims that no one could meaningfully investigate,” she said.

County lawmakers and politicians have been vocal critics of the law, which they say exposes them to decades-old claims that have no record. Supervisor Hilda Solis said she feels the county has become a “guinea pig” for the bill.

Acting County Executive Joe Nicetta estimated that between $1 billion and $2 billion in county taxpayer money from towns would go to attorneys.

“The law had some great intentions but it’s been … and I’m just going to say what I think, it’s been hijacked by the plaintiffs’ bar,” he said. “They’re doing all the investigating, they’re all spending, they’re doing massive advertising. They’re motivated to bring as many cases as possible.”

Nicchita said he heard rumors that venture capitalists are going around Sacramento to find out if we have enough money to pay for another settlement, so that they can fund a law firm to bring another round of settlements against us.

“It’s clear to me that the system is broken,” he said.

Courtney Thome, who was the lead attorney on the Manley, Stewart and Finaldi cases, said she believes the county is blaming the new state law for its attorneys’ failures.

“Blaming AB 218 and saying that’s what created the fraud is just an attempt to avoid responsibility,” Thom said. Tom said. “Our company has said for two years that we are concerned about fraud.”

Mike Arias, who represented clients in the latest settlement as a partner with Aria Sanguinetti Wang & Tim, said the three firms stopped adding clients more than a year ago.

“It’s a big difference,” Arias said. “We said, at that time, there was no change in the number of plaintiffs. Morally, my view was who we were representing and who we were negotiating for.”

Arias said the allocation for the second settlement will be made by retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Gil Under, who specializes in overseeing sexual assault cases. Potential payouts would be between $750,000 and $3.25 million, he said.

Victims say the money represents a travesty of justice for the abuse they say has left them locked up in county custody — few of whom have been criminally prosecuted.

One man, who is part of the settlement and did not want to be identified, said he doesn’t know what happened to the probation officer who he claims sexually assaulted the 16-year-old while he slept in his cell at Barry J. Niedorf Juvenile Hall, taking sleeping pills.

“I had no control over that place,” said the man, now 34. My body hasn’t felt like this since.

The county has launched an “AB 218 Fraud Hotline” where tipsters can report misconduct related to the flood of sexual assault claims.

(Rebecca Ellis/Los Angeles Times)

The county recently launched an “AB 218 Fraud Hotline” where tips can report misconduct related to the flood of claims. The county says it also plans to launch a hotline for victims to safely report allegations of sexual assault at its facilities.

“It is unlawful for anyone to file, pay, or receive money for making a false claim of childhood sexual abuse,” reads a banner that now runs across the top of the county’s website with hundreds of dollars in bills.

This province has also started one web page It asks people to report if they were offered cash for a lawsuit, which law firms were involved, and whether they were trained, among other questions.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who includes the South Central Social Services office in the district where seven people told The Times they were paid for the lawsuits, said she wants hotlines advertised as aggressively as plaintiffs’ attorneys advertise their cases.

“You can’t turn on an urban radio station without hearing these case commercials,” Mitchell said. “I certainly hope that whatever we use, as we talk about our access, that we lean heavily.”