Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Plaintiff’s Expert Values Damages At Over $13 Million

Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Plaintiff’s Expert Values Damages At Over $13 Million

The trial continued in the case of Prof. Gordon Klein versus the UC Regents and UCLA business school Dean Antonio Bernardo.

Legal Insurrection has been following the dispute since inception. Our prior trial reports are here:

• Trial Starts In Suit Against UCLA By Prof. Gordon Klein, Targeted and Smeared For Refusing Exam “Leniency” For Black Students
• Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Expert and Student Take The Stand
• Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Cross of Prof. Klein Wraps Up, Dean Bernardo Takes The Stand
• Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Dean’s Cross-Examination Continues, Supervisor Testifies

I attended three days of trial this week at the courthouse in Santa Monica.

Klein’s Expert Witness (Tuesday-Wednesday, July 22-23)

The trial continued on Tueday, July 22, with testimony from Eric Madsen, an economic damages and valuation expert, called by the plaintiff to calculate the financial toll Dean Bernardo’s actions allegedly have taken on Prof. Klein’s career.

Madsen, who holds CPA, CFA, and ABV certifications, as well as an MBA from the Anderson School of Management at UCLA, has over two decades of experience consulting in high-stake litigation matters, and testified that he has known Prof. Klein professionally for many years and even recommended him as an expert witness prior to the controversy. Madsen testified to the simplicity of Klein’s consulting business as “simpler than a hot dog stand,” noting that Klein has neither employees nor inventory, just revenue and reimbursed expenses.

Madsen was hired to quantify the economic damage suffered by Klein following his June 2020 suspension and Dean Bernardo’s public criticizing emails. He identified three primary sources of lost income: consulting income, UCLA wages, and UCLA retirement payout. Using Klein’s 2019 income of $1.36 million as a baseline, Madsen forecasted future earnings based solely on inflation rates, intentionally excluding any real growth, even though Klein’s billing rate had previously increased beyond inflation. His final calculation totals $13,296,556 in present value damages as of March 31, 2025.

Madsen said that his methods were conservative as he excluded both statutory interest and lost investment opportunity from his calculations after being advised to do so by counsel. He also applied downward adjustments for utilization, reflecting mortality and workforce participation, and discounted for industry and market risk despite acknowledging the litigation consulting industry as relatively low-risk compared to broader markets.

Madsen testified that the reputational harm to Prof. Klein was directly tied to his suspension and the ensuing administrative emails from UCLA leadership. He testified that Klein had two key “selling points” in the expert witness market: his credibility as a UCLA Anderson continuing lecturer, and his long record of testimony in major cases. According to Madsen, the administrative leave, which was widely broadcasted, transformed the university’s endorsement into a “stamp of disapproval” that made law firms hesitant to retain Klein, not because of any deficiency in qualifications but due to the perception that hiring him could damage a case. Madsen explained that clients would avoid this risk and opt for a similarly qualified expert without any baggage.

Under cross-examination by UCLA counsel, Madsen acknowledged that he only recently discovered Klein had underreported his 2018 income by $115,000, which impacted earlier versions of his report. He did not request 1099s or client confirmations to verify Klein’s invoices, relying instead on representations from Klein and his counsel. He defended this approach by emphasizing that this was outside the scope of his assignment.

Counsel also pressed Madsen on whether external factors, such as COVID-19, might explain Klein’s declining consulting income. Madsen conceded that unrelated events are a possibility, but stood by his opinion that the drop in Klein’s income was “reasonably attributable” to Bernardo’s actions, and any further externalities were accounted for in his calculations.

Madsen testified that, based on his expert judgement, the disciplinary actions taken by UCLA, including the widely circulated emails and suspension, were substantial causes of the demise of Prof. Klein’s consulting practice. While acknowledging the media coverage and public controversy, he stressed that those alone would not have doomed Klein’s business. It was the official condemnation by an authoritative institution, he testified, that obliterated Klein’s credibility as an expert witness.

Prof. Eugene Volokh (Tuesday July 23)

Prof. Eugene Volokh, a UCLA professor and expert on the First Amendment and academic freedom, testified through deposition about the university’s policy on faculty rights. As a member of UCLA’s Academic Freedom Committee, he said he brought the Klein matter to the committee’s attention. Volokh emphasized that no subject-matter expertise is required to serve on the committee, but noted that in his experience, he had never heard of a UCLA faculty member being suspended for the tone of an email sent to a student. Volokh also stated that he did not know what information the Anderson School had before deciding to place Klein on leave.

Dean Bernardo Cross-Examination (Wednesday, July 24, continued)

Court resumed Wednesday, July 24, 2025, with the plaintiff’s continued cross-examination of UCLA Anderson School Dean Antonio Bernardo. After multiple days of testimony, Bernardo’s credibility and rationale for placing Prof. Klein on involuntary administrative leave in June 2020 remained the central point of the case.

Dean Bernardo told the court that upon learning of complaints to the Discrimination Prevention Office (DPO) on the evening of June 2, 2020, he determined it was necessary to “take a pause,” his phrasing for placing Klein on leave. Yet, he did so before any action by Title IX office or the DPO and without ever reviewing the full scope of complaints or speaking with the complainants themselves.

Bernardo testified he believed that immediate action was necessary for student well-being though he acknowledged there was no indication Klein posed any physical threat and that students had no in-person contact with him due to the pandemic.

He further admitted he never reached out to Klein, student Leslie Giovanny, or the student author of a viral tweet about Klein. Nevertheless, Bernardo justified his actions as necessary for protecting UCLA’s values, while conceding he had no certainty that any policy had been violated at the time.

Plaintiff’s counsel introduced a string of internal emails showing a flurry of activity behind the scenes. Just hours after Klein’s email went public, a faculty chair emailed colleagues asking for backup instructors in case Klein was removed, writing “First we need to find a replacement for Klein and then we can explore any disciplinary action.” When pressed on this sequence, Bernardo claimed he didn’t recall giving such direction and maintained he was still conducting research.

Yet emails presented in court showed Bernardo asking about Klein’s teaching schedule early on the morning of June 3, before any investigation had taken place. That same day, he sent an email to Anderson leadership stating that they need to be able to share some action that shows rejection of what he said.

Berardo later acknowledged that language like “troubling behavior” in public facing communications could have conveyed more severe misconduct than what Klein was actually accused of, a singular email.

Under cross-examination, Bernardo confirmed that he never informed Klein of any alleged violation of policy before placing him on leave and did not follow through with a meeting promised in the notice of leave. He testified that the Anderson administration doesn’t handle investigations despite the fact that his office initiated the removal and widely publicized it.

He further admitted he wasn’t aware the faculty Code of Conduct cited in Klein’s notice of leave did not even apply to lecturers in Unit 18. When asked whether this misstep indicated he acted too hastily, Bernardo simply replied, “No.”

While Bernardo claimed to be responding to a community concern, he was confronted with his own deposition where he said pro and anti Klein relations were roughly equal, undermining the urgency of removing Klein based solely on public outcry.

Bernardo also confirmed he never consulted UCLA’s academic freedom committee before taking action, despite acknowledging that Klein’s response fell under the purview of academic freedom. He cited complaints of a hostile environment for women based on secondhand information but failed to verify whether any students had filed actual complaints.

Plaintiff’s counsel emphasized that Klein’s suspension happened before any investigation concluded, and that Bernardo had no direct knowledge of any discriminatory intent. Yet Bernardo stood by his actions, saying he wanted to reassure the Anderson community of its core values. He testified that protecting UCLA’s reputation was part of his decision-making process.

During questioning by defense counsel, Dean Bernardo reiterated that he did not personally investigate Prof. Klein’s conduct because he lacked the expertise to evaluate the implications of the complaints. He said the initial student emails raised concerns about blurred faculty student boundaries, specifically due to Klein referencing “favorites” in the context of grading. Bernardo testified that the timing of the Giovanny email and the viral student tweet created what appeared to be a cascading series of events. He feared that others, previously reluctant to speak, may now feel emboldened to raise concerns making this an ongoing issue.

Bernardo acknowledged that he did not know whether the flood of complaints were duplicates or novel allegations, and confirmed that he did not put Klein on leave because he refused to grant racial preference, nor did anyone at UCLA direct Klein to do so.

Upcoming Trial Dates

Dean Bernardo’s cross-examination will continue (and possibly conclude) on Tuesday, July 29, after which the trial will continue for most of the week.

[Featured Image credit: Rianna Dy]

======================

Rianna Dy is a recent UCLA graduate with a Bachelors of Arts in Business Economics.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.