State Bar drops charges against four DTLA Law Group attorneys

The California State Bar has abruptly dropped disciplinary charges against four attorneys affiliated with Downtown L.A. Law Group who were accused of soliciting and representing personal injury clients in states where they were not licensed, a move veteran legal ethics attorneys called highly unusual.

State Bar Court Judge Alison R. Worthington on Monday granted the Office of Chief Trial Counsel's request to dismiss proceedings against Salar Hendizadeh, Daniel Azizi, Farid Yaghoubtil and Igor Fradkin. The consolidated cases had been headed toward a lengthy disciplinary trial beginning in October.

The dismissals were without prejudice, allowing the State Bar to bring charges again.

Diane L. Karpman, a longtime legal ethics attorney, said she was stunned that such a prominent disciplinary case had ended without a public explanation.

"I found it shocking," Karpman said. "I haven't seen anything like this in my 40 years of practice in the area. I'm not aware of any case where something has received so much publicity [and] magically became a phantom."

The attorneys had faced allegations arising from Downtown L.A. Law Group's representation of personal injury clients in Texas, Florida, Maryland, Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, Virginia and Tennessee, where they were not licensed. In the Matter of Hendizadeh et al., SBC-26-O-30254, SBC-26-O-30402, SBC-26-O-30403, SBC-26-O-30404 (State Bar Ct., consolidated July 6, 2026).

The State Bar said Wednesday that its motion to dismiss was filed under seal, preventing it from disclosing why prosecutors abandoned the cases. The agency also said confidentiality rules prevent it from saying whether investigations related to the dismissed charges remain pending.

"Because the dismissals were without prejudice, the State Bar remains free to refile amended charges and/or additional charges in the future," the agency said.

Karpman said the secrecy was particularly striking given the attention the cases had received.

"One would think that with that amount of publicity some comment would be expected, if not anticipated, by the public," she said.

Attorneys for three of the respondents confirmed the dismissals, but said sealed filings prevented them from explaining what prompted them.

Christine C. Rosskopf of Rosing Pott & Strohbehn LLP, who represents Azizi, said the State Bar Court dismissed all four cases without prejudice.

"The relevant pleadings were sealed by the court, so I cannot comment on the reasons for the dismissals," Rosskopf said. "DTLA is a proud member of the legal community and respects the integrity of the State Bar."

Attorneys for Yaghoubtil and Fradkin emphasized that the dismissals did not result from settlements.

"We can confirm that the court dismissed the cases," said Randall A. Miller of Miller Waxler LLP, who represents Yaghoubtil. "We cannot comment on the reasons for the dismissals except to say that there was no settlement."

Emil J. Ali of McCabe & Ali LLP, counsel for Fradkin, likewise confirmed that his client had not agreed to a settlement.

Kevin P. Gerry, counsel for Hendizadeh, did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Court records show the Office of Chief Trial Counsel moved to dismiss the consolidated proceedings Aug. 25. The respondents filed a notice of non-opposition two days later, which Worthington ordered sealed effective Aug. 31.

The dismissal followed weeks of litigation over how the cases would proceed. Azizi had sought dismissal of the amended charges and a stay while pursuing interlocutory review. Fradkin challenged consolidation and also sought a stay, while Yaghoubtil pursued additional discovery. The Review Department denied Fradkin's interlocutory petition Aug. 21 and Azizi's on Aug. 28.

Professional responsibility attorney Carol Langford called the dismissal "very rare," while cautioning that the State Bar's reasoning remains unknown. She suggested prosecutors could be awaiting the outcome of other investigations that might affect the level of discipline sought.

Langford was more critical of the absence of a public explanation.

"For the Bar to say nothing is a very bad idea on their part," she said. "The public has little faith in a governmental organization that hides the reasoning behind a dismissal of a case against a high profile firm. Particularly after the Girardi fiasco."