Back to the Source

Documentary Notebook is a weekly newsletter for people interested in the state of the genre, people behind the camera, and the process of making documentaries.

In a recent Newsletter I wrote about a documentary I’m finishing and a dilemma about helping a source.

The film is about notorious Los Angeles attorney Tom Girardi, now doing serious time in the pen for defrauding clients of huge settlements he had won for them.

The story about Tom can’t be told in all its sordid noirishness without also including his now estranged wife Erika Girardi, AKA Erika Jayne. If you aren’t among the millions of viewers and fans of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, then you won't know she’s one of the stars.

Tom and Erika married soon after meeting at the old Chasen’s restaurant in Beverly Hills. Erika is three decades younger than Tom.

He went every day for lunch where she was a server. He liked the place so much he later became an investor.

You’ll have to watch the film when it comes out for the gory details. Long story short, Erika split from Tom a few weeks before he and his law firm crumbled into bankruptcy. The music had stopped and so did the Ponzi scheme he ran for over thirty years.

Which means Erika is exposed legally.

Their assets were community property. Beyond that, Tom’s law firm lent Erika $25 million to support her career as a singer, dancer, and reality TV star.

In terms of legal liabilities, this means even by filing for divorce Erika could check out, but she couldn’t leave, as the song goes.

A Trustee was appointed by the bankruptcy court to manage the dog pile of financial ruins. She started delving into the financial mess Tom left behind, clawing money back from any assets to make people he defrauded whole.

The $14 million estate in Pasadena was sold. Anything not nailed down inside the place and in his Wilshire Boulevard offices was auctioned. I filmed those auctions for a peek at the opulence.

When Erika refused the Trustee's demand that she return the $750,000 diamond earrings Tom bought her using client funds, the story became red meat for the tabloids; even Jon Hamm got in on it with Howard Stern.

Along the way the Trustee discovered there was a $25 million loan to Erika on the law firm’s books. And she sued Erika to get it back. The funds used to pay Erika’s AmEx card came from a Client Trust Account. This is a real no-no because client settlement funds are supposed to be kept separate and sacred by a law firm.

Which brings me to the source in question: Erika’s attorney. Let’s call him Señor Esquire.

In two weeks, when Erika goes to federal court in Los Angeles to defend herself in the $25 million civil suit, Señor Esquire will be defending her.

I have not been in contact with Esquire for a very long time. Not since I filmed with him over two years ago.

I had found his name, number, and email address at the end of a court filing.

He wrote back within an hour saying he was available to talk!

Which we (I should say he) did for over an hour.

Some months later we met in person, no camera. We bonded over cigars outside his building at eleven in the morning. A challenge for me, staying conscious, since I hadn’t yet eaten.

Next time I saw him was at a court hearing about Erika. This time I filmed: before and after.

Like Dr. Gonzo in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, played by Benicio Del Toro in the movie, this guy Señor Esquire is wild.

As he drove at 80 mph from the hearing in downtown LA back to his office in Orange County, he gave me an interview while smoking a cigar, drinking a Red Bull, and talking non-stop.

Later he offered to set up a meeting for me with Erika to pitch her about participating in the film. I was fully aware of being spun, but heck. This would be good for the film! Major streamers told me if I got her on-camera they’d jump in.

Meeting her in person was surreal. But I’m not going to give any more away. There’s a film in production!

I will go to Erika’s trial in a couple fo weeks, filming the before and after, just as I did during Tom’s trial since there’s no recording inside federal court.

The trial will be in the very same courthouse as her husband’s, one floor above.

Last week I spoke to Señor Esquire. It had been two years, but he picked up right where we left off.

He says he’s going to recommend to Erika that she go on camera.

“I'll do anything for you. I don't give a shit,” he told me.

“As far as Erika goes and what she wants to do on camera or not. That's up to her. But look, I'll recommend it.”

The producing considerations: fly to LA, stay in the same high-end hotel as the attorney, and maybe get Erika on camera? Doing all this on credit cards because the budget was blown out a long time ago.

A gamble.

Plus challenges raised by my trusty editor.

If you do get Erika on camera, he told me, you must ask the hard questions: Why did you refuse to give back the $750,000 diamond earrings? How can you convince the jury that the $25 million loan from Tom’s law firm did not benefit you? Aren’t you being hypocritical using stolen client funds to support your career and generate a high six-figure income?

Stay tuned for an update.