The Brief

The email was urgent and alarming.

The message appeared to come from the L.A. Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It said Patty Lui’s toy business in downtown L.A. was under federal investigation, and she had 24 hours to contact the agency — “whether individually or by legal representative on your behalf.”

Text of a fabricated email Zargarof used to convince his client to send $10,000 to defend against nonexistent investigation.

(

State Bar of California court filings

)

By the time Lui suspected something was wrong, she said she’d paid her attorney, Ronen Zargarof, tens of thousands of dollars. According to findings from the California State Bar, Zargarof charged Lui for a number of “fictitious services.”

Zargarof’s license is currently suspended, according to State Bar records. In October, more than three years after the email about the fake ICE investigation, the State Bar Court recommended Zargarof be disbarred. They found that Zargarof, who was already working for Lui on another matter, knew the purported ICE email was fake. There was no urgent ICE investigation.

Lui told LAist that when she ended up sending Zargarof about $90,000.

“I was really rushing it and I really believed in what he said,” Lui told LAist.

Zargarof did not cooperate with the State Bar’s investigation into his dealings with Lui, who ultimately complained to the bar, or contest the charges set forth in the accusation filed by the bar against him, court documents show. The California Supreme Court still has to rule on whether Zargarof will be disbarred.

Zargarof has not responded to LAist's requests for comment on this story. According to civil court filings, he also ignored multiple orders to provide discovery materials in his case.

The documents show that Zargarof’s defense lawyers argued in February 2021 that he was unable to attend a deposition because he was out of state with no estimated return date. The lawyers then filed to leave the case in April, shortly after Zargarof was ordered by the court to attend a deposition the following month. Zargarof did not attend the deposition, court records state, and the court ruled against him in a default judgement.

How to protect yourself

George Cardona, chief trial counsel of the State Bar of California, said people navigating immigration law are especially vulnerable to misconduct and misrepresentation.

The State Bar files charges against 100 to 200 attorneys each year, Cardona said. Those charges can lead to disciplinary actions like suspension, disbarment or fines.

“ Of the cases we file, a fair number involve misappropriations of funds or misrepresentations,” Cardona told LAist. “We have had other cases, particularly in immigration context, involving fabricated documents.”

As federal immigration cases have ramped up this year with the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies, there may be even more risk.

Cardona recommends anyone needing a lawyer to look into the attorney you plan to hire before trusting them to represent you in court.

A search of court records in late 2021, when Lui first hired Zargarof, could have turned up a judgment against him for more than $170,000. According to court filings, Zagarof was ordered to pay damages of $76,500 for breach of contract and $48,500 for “tort causes,” including battery, assault, domestic violence, negligence and infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff is listed as a “Jane Doe.”

“The Court finds Defendant's conduct was willful, wanton, oppressive and malicious,” the order states.

When it comes to keeping yourself safe from fraud, Cardona said, the first thing you should do is search for a lawyer on the State Bar of California's webpage before deciding whether to hire them.

“ First, it can confirm that they're a lawyer, and second, it will show if they have any disciplinary history,” he said.

Cardona said people posing as lawyers is especially prevalent in immigration cases.

After checking whether a lawyer is licensed or has a history of disciplinary actions, he said you should look online for reviews or check with friends who may have an attorney they know first-hand.

The lawyer will be acting on your behalf, Cardona said, “ so it's important to have someone you can trust.”

A cautionary tale

Lui initially hired Zargarof to handle a separate, civil employment case in November 2021.

She told LAist that she never met Zargarof in person. November is a particularly busy time for her business making and selling teddy bears, Lui said, and for a few weeks it seemed Zargarof was on top of the case.

“ He was always telling me that he just came out from the court and this is what I need,” Lui said, “I need to pay and pay and pay.”

Zargarof began asking for more money to cover various fees, she said, pushing her to quickly send him money.

“ I’d have to rush to send him a wire,” Lui told LAist. “I was so nervous.”

According to the State Bar’s findings, some of Zargarof’s fees were for “fictitious services,” including $2,500 to have her daughter dismissed from the civil case against Lui, and $6,000 for proceedings before the “Labor Board of Los Angeles County.”

The State Bar noted in court documents that Lui’s daughter was never accused of any wrongdoing in the case, and that the “Labor Board of Los Angeles County” does not exist.

The bar described in court filings how Zargarof made up these scenarios to charge Lui fees for services he never provided.

Zargarof sent text messages to Lui, which were quoted in court filings and provided more information on the investigation.

“There were two search warrant[s] . . . for your computers and files. We are dismissing those today,” Zargarof messaged Lui.

Zargarof said that he knew an “immigration experts partner,” named Tracey Pierantoni, and directed Lui to pay $10,000 into Pierantoni’s bank account.

“They are going to charge a flat rate of 5 [thousand] per file = 10k so I think it will be cheaper for you to wire them before 130 today instead of putting it on card,” said one message included in court documents.

There was no ICE investigation, according to the court documents, and Tracey Pierantoni Zargarof is not a licensed attorney in the state of California.

Court documents allege that Pierantoni Zargarof is one of several family members Zargarof used to accept payments from Lui.

Pierantoni Zargarof denies any involvement in the payments, and told LAist she intends to file charges against Zargarof for identity fraud.

“I have nothing to do with his criminal activity," Pierantoni Zargarof said when asked for comment. She added that she hasn't seen him in two or three years and doesn't know where he is or how to reach him.

Details from the State Bar Complaint

While Lui was trying to keep up with her business and pay Zargarof’s fees, court records document that Zargarof ran up a $25,000 bill on Lui’s credit card to pay for a hotel stay at the Rosewood Miramar Beach in Santa Barbara.

Zargarof told Lui he was using the card to hire private investigators for her case, she told LAist. Once she learned that wasn’t true she went to her bank with a fraud claim.

She also made a complaint to the State Bar of California in August 2022, which led to disciplinary charges against Zargarof in April 2025.

Lui said her bank was able to return the money that was charged to her card, but she hasn't been able to recover tens of thousands of additional payments that the State Bar found were for "fictitious services.”

Screen time limits for Los Angeles Unified School District’s youngest students begin in August.

“My hope and expectation is that most families will see a dramatic reduction in screen time during the school day, but also in the evenings, as mandated by school,” said Nick Melvoin, who represents the Westside’s Board District 4.

While LAUSD was the first major U.S. school district to restrict screen time across all grades, the policy, along with a 2024 decision to ban student cellphone use, is part of a nationwide trend toward limiting young people’s exposure to tech during the school day.

Many parents have embraced — and advocated for— less technology in the classroom, but questions remain about how LAUSD will enforce the screen time limits and the potential for unintended consequences for students who have less access to devices outside of school.

Below we break down what we know about LAUSD’s new screen time policy.

What part of the screen time limits start in August?

The policy eliminates digital device usage for students in early education (preschool), transitional kindergarten (TK), kindergarten and first grade.

There are several exceptions, including:

• District- and state-mandated assessments. 
• Students enrolled in the LAUSD Virtual Academy program. 
• To help students with disabilities learn, as mandated by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan. 

Students will not be automatically issued devices to take home. However, there is still a process for families to request one.

The policy also requires the district to block all students from accessing YouTube, social media and streaming platforms without teacher approval.

The type of work students bring home may change, too. The policy encourages educators to provide off-screen assignments.

“Homework should prioritize reading, writing, problem-solving, hands-on activities, observation, and other learning experiences that can be completed without the use of a device,” the policy reads.

Andrés Chait, the district’s superintendent, said at a July 21 news conference that implementing the new policy will take time.

“On Aug. 12, you may not necessarily see in the immediate all of the changes that the policy calls for, but they will be implemented methodically and transparently,” Chait said.

Where did the screen time policy come from?

A group of Los Angeles parents organized a group called Schools Beyond Screens in 2025 and started speaking at board meetings, collecting petition signatures and advocating for the district to limit student device use.

Melvoin brought forward the resolution that ultimately led to the new policy in April.

“We had not recalibrated or reset our relationship with technology post-COVID,” said Melvoin, at the time. “Six years ago, we sent every kid in L.A. home with a device, which was a lifeline. … But when they came back, I'm still seeing kids as young as preschool on devices all day.”

The board adopted the policy in June after staff conducted research and outreach to parents, educators and community members.

How much does it cost to limit screen time?

District staff estimated the most significant costs include up to $4 million in one-time funds to purchase carts to store laptops in elementary school classrooms and an annual $1 million to pay for software to track screen time and block content.

The district has yet to spend this money, according to a statement from a Los Angeles Unified spokesperson.

“Conversations with schools will take place in the early part of the upcoming school year to assess needs on a school-by-school basis,” the statement read.

Was there any pushback to the new policy?

The board voted unanimously to adopt the screen time policy with the exception of Board President Scott Schmerelson, who recused himself from the vote.

However, there was some discussion about whether the limitations would have unintended consequences for teachers and students.

Board Vice President Rocío Rivas cautioned that the minute limits may discourage teachers from assigning multimedia projects, and adds the burden of monitoring student technology use.

“Schools may end up focusing on counting minutes, documenting usage, auditing classrooms instead of evaluating learning outcomes,” Rivas said.

LAUSD staff’s analysis of the screen time policy noted a “risk of slowing access to technology and its advancement for students to compete with the world.”

During public comment in June, Mireya Garcia, a mother and grandmother, told the board that her family shares a single computer at home.

“I don’t want them to lose access to tools that can help them read, to learn and to be successful,” Garcia said.

How are teachers preparing for the changes?

LAUSD adopted the screen time policy when most teachers and students were off-campus for the summer.

A Los Angeles Unified spokesperson wrote in a statement that training has started with “dedicated sessions” for principals and administrators and that more resources will be available to educators before Aug.12 and throughout the school year.

“This approach allows us to be respectful of educators’ time while ensuring schools are prepared and supported for a successful rollout,” the spokesperson wrote.

The first opportunity for most teachers to return to their classroom is on Monday, Aug. 10, two days before school starts.

Stephanie Levinson, who’s taught at San Fernando Elementary for 28 years, said she has not received any additional guidance from the district since the policy was passed this summer.

This year, she’ll teach a combined first- and second-grade class. Under the new policy, first graders do not have access to digital devices and second graders can use them for up to 20 minutes per day this year.

“It's stressful because we don't know,” Levinson said. “It's hard to plan a school day when we're not sure what's gonna be mandated, how things are gonna work.”

Levinson said that, in the past, she’d assign students to use interactive learning programs like ABCmouse while she worked with their peers in small groups. She also fundraised to bring laptops and tablets to her classroom, where most students come from low-income families, before the devices were widespread in the district.

“If a kid hasn't learned how to even use a computer or type, how are they going to…not be disadvantaged against kids that have computers?” Levinson said.

How can families get access to a digital device?

Parents and guardians can request a take-home device when enrolling their child or through the district’s Parent Portal app or website.

The Los Angeles Public Library has a laptop and hotspot checkout program for adults.

What’s next for screen time in LAUSD?

The policy requires the board to review the screen time rules at least once a year during a public meeting.

“One of the reasons we crafted this policy is because we didn't see a policy that we could just adopt nationally,” Melvoin said. “But that also means that it'll be iterative and that we're working out the kinks.”

The district has also created an ad hoc committee to provide recommendations on how the district is using AI.

When Los Angeles County and city officials released the results of the annual homelessness count last week, there seemed to be a bright spot: While the number of people counted as living on the streets went up by nearly 8%, the number of families reported to be living on the streets decreased by 27% in L.A. and 34% across the county, according to LAist's analysis of the data.

But providers — as well as the agency that oversees the count — are skeptical the numbers match reality.

Those official numbers don’t add up for Constanza Pachon, CEO of The Whole Child, a homeless services agency that solely serves families in southeast L.A. County.

“ It's not what the experience is on our doors,” Pachon said.

For instance, the count found an estimated 274 families experiencing homelessness in her agency’s service area, but Pachon said her organization served nearly 1,500 families last year who were unhoused.

“It’s so unbelievably undercounted,” she said.

Providers have long said that family homelessness is hard to quantify because families with children aren’t always a visible population living on the streets. They’re more likely to experience homelessness by staying in their cars, motels, or by couch-surfing.

“The point-in-time count does not capture that nuance that as providers we see on the day-to-day,” Pachon said.

The way the point-in-time count works, in part, is that volunteers fan out throughout the city and county to physically count who they see experiencing homelessness on the street or in “dwellings” — tents, vehicles and makeshift shelters — places where children may not be visible or present.

“ People who have kids will find places for their kids so that they don't have to live outside, even if they don't have an option themselves,” said Katie Hill, CEO of Union Station Homeless Services.

She said last year alone, her agency had to turn away 500 families for shelter. Meanwhile, the official estimated number of unsheltered families in Union Station’s service area was 42.

“I honestly don't know that I would take a whole lot away from [the family count]. I would look at it as if homelessness is increasing, family homelessness is definitely increasing as well,” she said.

What's behind the numbers?

Officials in charge of the count say they’re also cautious about the numbers. The overall number of people living in families with children countywide — including sheltered and unsheltered — decreased by 14%, the agency said. (LAist's analysis of the numbers show an even more dramatic decline in families that are unsheltered.)

“We have reason to believe that declining resources available to families is behind this family point-in-time count decrease,” said Paul Rubenstein, chief of staff at LAHSA.

Due to funding cuts over the last year, families have been turned away from shelters that were at capacity.

That meant families weren’t seeking help at resource centers like they used to, which made it hard to accurately capture family homelessness. Officials use surveys distributed at Family Solution Centers to help estimate the number of families experiencing homelessness, since it’s hard to physically count families on the streets.

“If fewer families complete surveys, there is less information available to estimate how many families are represented in the count. That can lead to a lower estimate of unsheltered families, even if the number of tents or vehicles counted remains the same,” Ahmad Chapman, a spokesperson for LAHSA, told LAist in an email. "For that reason, the family estimate should be viewed cautiously and tracked over multiple years, rather than relying too heavily on a single year's change."

Funding for a rental subsidy program that helps families move into permanent housing was cut by nearly half, according to the agency, and providers say that has contributed to a backlog of families staying in shelters longer.

Hill, with Union Station Homeless Services, said because people are staying longer, there’s no room to take in new families.

“ One thing we have seen too is people getting discouraged because they keep coming to us for help, and we don't have a lot of help that we can offer,” Hill said.

When you’re drinking a glass of water, you might not think about the potential for microplastics floating around inside the cup.

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new standards for monitoring our drinking water, a move that lays the groundwork for future safety regulation.

But microplastics aren't included on the list — and many advocacy groups are concerned.

More than 250 health professionals added their names to a May letter to the EPA that called microplastics "a public health crisis that can no longer be ignored."

“It is estimated that the average person consumes 4,000 or more microplastic particles annually from drinking water alone,” the letter continued.

The EPA released a statement to LAist Wednesday saying the agency "acknowledges the interest in and concern for microplastics in drinking water" and is in the process of taking steps to prioritize the needed research.

Why it matters

The proposed new testing program would require public water facilities to test for a list of up to 30 chemicals and contaminants such as pesticides and PFAS — dubbed "forever chemicals" — which are found in products like nonstick cookware.

Water safety advocates say it’s important to test for those chemicals because they can seep into water systems by runoff, factory leaching and landfill leakages. Experts say testing the substances helps identify what contaminants pose a health risk, and how much is present in water systems.

Safety advocates say they want microplastics added to the list because research has shown that ingesting them is potentially harmful to humans.

Over the past few years, governors, attorneys general and almost 200 organizations sent letters to the EPA urging the agency to include microplastics on the test list.

Among them is California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is part of a 14-state coalition petitioning to add microplastics to the proposed new screening list, known formally as the UCMR 6.

“Microplastics clearly warrant further monitoring and regulation due to their prevalence throughout the environment and the rapidly growing evidence of their negative impact on the environment and public health,” Bonta and others stated in a joint letter to the EPA last month.

So what’s the challenge?

It takes time to develop, test and approve methods for testing certain contaminants in water so that public systems can uniformly and consistently measure them. With microplastics, the research just isn’t there yet, according to EPA officials.

“There is no validated EPA or consensus drinking water analytical method with the proper quality control data, accuracy, and precision that could be used for UCMR 6,” agency officials said in a filing published early this month in the Federal Register.

What this means locally

The good news for Southern California residents concerned about microplastics is that the state has pulled ahead of the federal government in microplastic screenings. A law passed in 2018, Senate Bill 1422, called on regulators to implement a testing plan for microplastics in large community water systems.

Implementation of the law is still in its early stages, so only certain providers are required to test for microplastics. The state chose departments based on water supply, size of agency and forms of treatment.

Once more analysis is done with these agencies, the law is designed to expand its reach to all water departments.

The Irvine Ranch Water District is one of the agencies selected by the state to perform testing.

Although validated methods have not yet emerged, Jim Colston, the district's director of water quality and regulatory compliance, said he is confident that the area’s water is safe.

“There are many pervasive sources of microplastics in the environment, but the public water supply has not been shown to be a significant source,” Colston said.

LAist spoke to authorities at several Southern California water departments, and all said that consumers should not worry about their drinking water.

“Our drinking water is safe,” said Pat Versluis, director of water quality for the Orange County Water District, which serves 2.5 million people in the central and North Orange County area.

“I'd say the state of California's process, it's been methodical for several years," Versluis said. "They seem to be getting closer to a more refined sample collection, sample analysis, and kind of process for monitoring water sources.

"And we're following that closely.”

Where you come in

• The UCMR 6 program still needs to be finalized by the end of the year.
• Once it goes into effect in January 2028, the list of substances will be tested in a three-year sample period. The process of examining the research can then take two or more years after that.
• The EPA is accepting public comments on this issue until Aug. 31.
• If you want to weigh in on microplastics testing, you can contact local government representatives or the EPA. (Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit advocacy group, provides templates for people who don’t know where to begin.)