The regulation of attorneys is a mysterious subject for many people. Those with no involvement in this community are often curious, and from time to time I get questions from the public. I have written about the issue, see A Lawyer Discipline Story (January 2018); Don't Double Down Dummy! (June 2017); Anger and E-mail (May 2019); Twice Blessed (April 2019); Then Arrested (January 2021); Reproval for AV Preeminent® Lawyer (December 2023).
Los Angeles Magazine reported in November 2024 on "a bogus law firm" that operated "on Rodeo Drive" in Hollywood. A partner in that firm has been disbarred according to a November 2024 report. The story refers to this attorney as "a private jet-flying career conman" and an "Armenian organized crime figure." His former law firm office is said to have been festooned with selfies celebrating his supposed association with various high-profile celebrities like "President Barack Obama and California Governor Gavin Newsom."
The story reads a bit like Tony Curtis' The Great Imposter (Universal 1960), or the more recent Catch Me if You Can (Dreamworks 2002).
This masquerader is said to have "turned confidential informant" in a criminal case, and there testified that he never took the California Bar Examination. That is intriguing. There is a great deal of effort devoted to security for such examinations.
The case in which this particular masquerader was an "informant" apparently involved a 2022 prosecution of an FBI agent (72 months), a Homeland Security Agent (121 months), and a police detective (21 months). The three were sent "to Federal Prison" following the masquerader's testimony and admission regarding his invalid law license.
The masquerader testified "that he paid a ringer to take the California Bar Exam for him" in 2015. He claims that he paid the Ringer "$20,000 a month to study for the test" and gifted the Ringer "a Rolex when he passed it." The story describes the bar security efforts being frustrated by "a fake ID and smudged fingerprints."
This is unique. I could not find other examples in which someone similarly managed to flummox a legal system. The British Broadcasting Corporation reported on a man in Kenya who "stole the identity of a real lawyer." Times of India reported on someone that "was practising (sic) in different courts by forging certificates and degrees." The Miami Herald reported "A man who may have qualified as the world’s worst attorney," who lacked a license and a law degree. But, I could not find another example where someone paid a ringer to take the exam for her/him.
The alleged Ringer and the fraud then allegedly became law partners, and "According to Sargsyan’s (the masquerader/fraud) testimony," the firm provided the location from which "he ran a labyrinthine identity theft scam, laundering some of his scheme's proceeds with political campaign donations." The masquerader is listed as "disbarred" on August 23, 2024, and as "suspended" as of November 30, 2020.
At this point, it bears the reminder that this story was OCCURRED in Hollywood; it was not written by Hollywood. That said, it sure seems like a zany movie script.
When the three law enforcement officers were convicted, the masquerader "was hit with a mere six months in federal prison in recognition of his cooperation." And, "his whereabouts are (currently) unknown" (However, the California Bar site has an address and phone number listed).
The Los Angeles Magazine poses two interesting questions:
"why it took such a long time to (disbar) . . . Sargsyan" in 2024, and
"why (the "ringer") continues to practice"
In fairness, those questions are connected but not identical. The first is seemingly more clear. The fraud (Masquerader) admits in sworn testimony that he did not take or pass the bar examination. That admission was covered by multiple news outlets. However, the Los Angeles Magazine article does not mention the California Court action suspending the masquerader rapidly in 2020.
While permanency (disbarment) required time and due process, the protection of the public appears to have occurred much more rapidly. Thus, the interest of the public appears to have been protected as a process proceeded for four years and led to disbarment. Despite that more immediate suspension, some will take issue with the ensuing four years.
The second question is more difficult. The bar has the sworn testimony of the Masquerader. That levels serious allegations against the Ringer. That testimony is four years old and how that Ringer remains seemingly unaffected by is at least interesting. The distinction may be in that the Masquerader's own admission is sufficient for his discipline but to discipline the Ringer requires more proof?
That seems a bit at odds with the criminal proceeding. The Masquerader's testimony was sufficient there to put three law enforcement officials in jail. One might conclude that there is at least some credibility to his story, allegations, and accusations? According to the California Bar, Henrik Mosesian Mosesi, the alleged Ringer, remains an active and licensed attorney.
The questions raised by the Los Angeles Magazine article are reasonable and fair. There is a fundamental interest in affording due process to all. Everyone accused of wrongdoing is entitled to the resumption of innocence. Nonetheless, there is room to criticize when processes lack public transparency and move at a pace that it difficult to comprehend.
The end result of the Los Angeles Magazine story is an innuendo of distrust in the system that tests and licenses attorneys in California. As the story receives national attention, it has the potential to foster the same curiosity, questions, and distrust in unrelated venues.
A critical conclusion might be that increased transparency in all venues could be a genuine benefit to the public trust and confidence across the country. If lawyers are to be self-policing, transparency might make the public more comfortable with it. There is asking for the public trust and then there is earning it.
