On television, they both have played doting mothers who could do no wrong.

Now, Hollywood actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin find themselves as the twin public faces of a sprawling college admissions bribery scheme — the best-known symbols of presumptuous entitlement at the center of widespread ire.

But even as the admissions scandal has placed Huffman and Loughlin side by side in the spotlight amid dozens of lesser-known parents, the actresses’ roles in this real-life drama are actually quite different — and diverging by the minute.

One glimpse of that?

When Huffman announced this week that she would plead guilty to the crime she’s accused of, she issued a long, hand-wringing apology and her appearances in court have been somber — lips pursed and eyes avoiding the dozens of news cameras all around. Loughlin, who so far has not opted to enter a plea, has seemed to approach her courthouse visits with an affect more common on the red carpet — she has repeatedly been photographed smiling, at one point signing autographs for fans before she walked into federal court.

Distinctions between the two actresses’ cases, though, run far deeper, and they offer hints at the legal fight that may be ahead in the nation’s largest-ever admissions prosecution. The amounts the women are accused of spending in the fraud are far different — $15,000 versus $500,000. The circumstances outlined in court documents are distinct as well: a faked test for a daughter versus deals to get two daughters admitted to the University of Southern California with phony athletic claims.

“There are enormous differences between them and it is a critical factor,” Eileen Decker, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, said of the cases against Huffman and Loughlin. “It goes to their individual culpability. This scheme had so many levels to it: having a person take the test for them, putting money through the fake charity, hiding it from children and authorities. So far, the Loughlin case indicates far more significant involvement in the fraud.”

THE ACCUSATIONS

Huffman and Loughlin are charged in the same sweeping criminal complaint, but the particular claims against them suggest far different plots.

In 2017, William Singer, the private college admissions consultant who has admitted to being the architect of a ring that used bribes from parents to get children into colleges, came to the Los Angeles home Huffman shared with her husband, actor William H. Macy. Singer, who has pleaded guilty to multiple counts of conspiracy, bribery and fraud, explained that for $15,000 he could pay someone to supervise their daughter’s SAT at a test center he “controlled.” That person would then secretly correct her answers.

Over several months, Huffman exchanged emails with Singer, making sure she understood the precise details of how the cheating would work. When a counselor at her daughter’s school suggested she take the exam somewhere other than at Singer’s preferred testing center, Huffman wrote to Singer with alarm, copies of her emails show: “Ruh Ro! Looks like (my daughter’s high school) wants to provide own proctor.”

In the end, prosecutors say, the scheme went forward. Huffman’s daughter, who apparently knew nothing of the plans, got a score of 1420, about 400 points higher than she had earned on her Preliminary SAT exams.

According to the criminal complaint against Huffman, when it came time for her younger daughter to take the exams, Huffman and Singer again spoke in great detail and plans began for a similar process. But those plans were ultimately scrapped, the prosecutors said, and the younger girl took the tests on her own.

Loughlin’s lawyers did not return calls Wednesday, but prosecutors suggest that for Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, plans with Singer began in 2016 and were far more complicated.

Giannulli, who, like Loughlin, has been indicted on conspiracy to commit mail fraud as well as conspiracy to commit money laundering, told Singer he was concerned about his oldest daughter and needed to ensure a “road map for success” for “getting her into a school other than ASU!”

For months, investigators say, Loughlin kept in close touch with Singer, even while the family vacationed in the Bahamas. Following his suggestion, they would present the daughter — Isabella Rose Giannulli — as a coxswain, though she had never rowed crew. Once her spot at the University of Southern California was assured, they wired $200,000 to Singer’s supposed charity.

According to prosecutors, Loughlin and Giannulli followed a similar path with their younger daughter. The total price tag? $500,000.

THE RESPONSES

On the same week Huffman announced she would plead guilty to the single criminal count against her, Loughlin was indicted in the case, and a criminal count — conspiracy to commit money laundering — was added. So the legal case against Huffman headed toward a final, penalty phase even as the legal stakes appeared to be mounting for Loughlin.

Back home in Southern California, Loughlin has been spotted out and about by eager paparazzi. She politely told one that he was welcome to follow her all day, but that she would not talk about the case. When he wished her well, she responded: “You have a beautiful day.”

She added: “Thank you so much. Thanks, honey.”

Huffman has appeared more reserved, saying little beyond her public statement this week as she announced she intended to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. “This transgression toward her and the public I will carry for the rest of my life,” she said of her daughter. “My desire to help my daughter is no excuse to break the law or engage in dishonesty.”

© 2019 The New York Times Company