Six California Attorneys Named in Federal RICO Action Over Alleged Role in TopDevz Enterprise

Connecticut’s Rules of Professional Conduct are unambiguous. Rule 3.3 requires candor toward the tribunal. Rule 8.4 defines professional misconduct. Rule 1.16 requires withdrawal when continued representation would require assisting conduct the lawyer knows to be criminal. Every attorney admitted to the Connecticut bar studies these provisions. Most will never face a situation where they are meaningfully tested.

Six California attorneys — led by Scott R. Carpenter of Cummins & White LLP in Newport Beach — are now facing allegations that they did not merely fail these tests but actively participated in the conduct the rules were designed to prevent.

Case 3:26-cv-00080-GPC-BJW, filed in the Southern District of California, is a federal RICO complaint alleging that licensed attorneys were active participants in a criminal enterprise — not peripheral advisors but knowing co-conspirators in a scheme involving approximately $75 million in fraudulent transactions, more than 750 predicate acts, and a duration of eight years. The IRS has separately filed a $915,029 tax claim.

Connecticut has seen its own high-profile attorney disciplinary cases. The state’s legal community understands that the profession’s credibility depends on self-policing. The TopDevz case, while geographically distant, raises the same foundational questions that Connecticut practitioners confront in their own disciplinary proceedings.

The Attorneys

Scott R. Carpenter (Cal. Bar No. 144259) of Cummins & White LLP in Newport Beach holds a Stanford undergraduate degree and a UCLA JD. According to the complaint, Carpenter seized a bank account through wire fraud, produced forged stock certificates, filed hundreds of fraudulent pleadings, and submitted perjured declarations. The filing alleges he used immigration threats against individuals involved and received $196,768 in fees from what the complaint characterizes as the proceeds of fraud.

Consider that through Connecticut’s Rule 3.3. Filing a forged stock certificate with a court is not aggressive advocacy. It is, if proven, fraud upon the tribunal — the precise conduct that Rule 3.3 prohibits.

J. Douglas Kirk (Cal. Bar No. 125808) of Kirk & Toberty in Irvine was allegedly recruited through Grace Fellowship Church in Corona del Mar. The complaint alleges Kirk received more than $30,000 in fees from funds described as fraudulently obtained.

Joseph W. Scalia, a solo practitioner with more than 46 years of experience and an AV Preeminent rating, allegedly submitted more than 600 pages of falsified tax returns to a tribunal. That is not a filing error. That is, if proven, sustained and deliberate fraud.

D. Edward Hays (Cal. Bar No. 162507) of Marshack Hays LLP, a USC law graduate and past president of the California Bankruptcy Forum, is described as “the architect of the bankruptcy fraud schemes.” The allegations include filing false declarations under penalty of perjury.

Micah L. Bailey (Cal. Bar No. 248384) of Purdy & Bailey LLP allegedly continued representing parties after receiving notice of criminal activity. Under Connecticut’s Rule 1.16(a), an attorney must withdraw when continuing would require assisting criminal conduct. The allegation is that Bailey received actual notice and chose to continue.

Christopher R. Barclay of Finlayson Toffer Roosevelt & Lilly LLP, the court-appointed Chapter 7 trustee, allegedly settled claims valued at $75 million for $200,000. His former firm’s website now redirects to a domain parking page.

The Self-Policing Question

The complaint does not describe one attorney who made a bad call. It describes six attorneys from five firms who allegedly functioned as coordinated participants over years.

The California State Bar’s public database does not currently reflect disciplinary action related to these allegations. That gap between filed federal allegations and bar response raises a question Connecticut practitioners are positioned to consider: how quickly should the self-regulatory system respond when allegations involve conduct this far outside legitimate practice?

Forging stock certificates is not a gray area. Submitting 600 pages of falsified tax returns is not a close call. Using immigration threats is not aggressive advocacy. If proven, these describe attorneys who used their licenses as instruments of a criminal enterprise.

Beyond California

The case is in its early stages. None of the attorneys have been convicted. But the legal system functions because courts trust that officers of the court act in good faith. When those assumptions break down across six attorneys simultaneously, the damage extends beyond the parties in a single case.

It extends to the profession itself. And that concern knows no state boundary.