Steven D. Silverstein, Esq.
California State Bar #86466 · Eviction counsel of record for Phat L.K. Tran · Received documented pretrial notice through six independent channels identifying specific contradicting evidence · Closing argument asserted the cashier’s check had been “returned by mail” — a characterization the USPS tracking record and the Court’s own March 27, 2025 minute order place in question.
The subject of this page is Steven D. Silverstein, Bar No. 86466, proprietor of Silverstein Eviction Law at 14351 Red Hill Avenue Suite G, Tustin, CA 92780. He is a separate individual from Steven A. Silverstein, a different Orange County attorney against whom an $8.7 million arbitration award was confirmed in an unrelated matter. No statement on this page relates to Steven A. Silverstein.
Identity and practice record
~46 years in practice as of 2025
Sole attorney of record
14351 Red Hill Avenue, Suite G
Tustin, CA 92780
stevendsilverstein.com
LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino Counties
Judge Pro Tem, Orange County (by assignment)
Gasio v. Tran et al.
OC Superior Court No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC
attorney Sean Sherlock (Snell & Wilmer)
No finding has been made.
Trial timeline — documented sequence
Pretrial notice pattern — six documented channels
| Item | Date / Channel | Confirmation | Contents |
|---|---|---|---|
| N-01 | Jan 16, 2025 · 1:40 PM PT Yahoo Mail to evictions@stevendsilverstein.com | Yahoo server records · full headers · no bounce | Eleven-day pretrial notice. Named Hanson Le (DRE #01358448) and Anna Ly (DRE #01894348) as co-actors. Express warning: “Do not perjure yourself regarding what you have done with those two real estate agents.” |
| N-02 | UPS Signature Required 14351 Red Hill Ave Suite G Tustin | [REDACTED — EVIDENCE PRESERVED] | Supporting documentation elaborating pretrial allegations |
| N-03 | UPS Signature Required | [REDACTED — EVIDENCE PRESERVED] | Additional supporting documentation |
| N-04 | UPS Signature Required | [REDACTED — EVIDENCE PRESERVED] | Additional supporting documentation |
| N-05 | Narrated video presentation (~15 min) | Four confirmed views · ~60 min aggregate engagement | Walkthrough of cashier’s check, USPS tracking, BHHS receipt, contract documents |
| N-06 | Continuous · gasiomirror.com | Server access logs · indexed by major search providers | Comprehensive evidentiary portal — 5,000+ files — publicly accessible from date of first package delivery forward |
The binary notice analysis
The Supreme Court held that willful blindness is the functional equivalent of actual knowledge: “(1) the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists and (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact.”
The binary election: Either Silverstein reviewed the documented notice — in which case continuation to trial proceeded with actual knowledge of contradicting evidence — or Silverstein chose not to review it — in which case willful blindness operates as the functional equivalent of actual knowledge. Either election supports the charging analysis below.
Alleged charges — thirteen counts
Every attorney guilty of any deceit or collusion with intent to deceive the court or any party is guilty of a misdemeanor. The conduct frame is the continued presentation of client representations to the tribunal following documented receipt of contradicting evidence through Notice Pattern N-01 through N-06. §6128 also supplies a civil treble-damages remedy independent of the criminal misdemeanor exposure.
Procuring another person to commit perjury. The conduct frame is calling and examining the client witness at trial after documented notice that the contemplated testimony was contradicted by preserved record evidence: the sealed cashier’s check, the USPS tracking confirmation, the landlord’s own “Hanson has the check” text message, and the bank records of the second payment made under written protest.
Offering in evidence as genuine any written instrument knowing the same to have been fraudulently made. The instruments at issue include the Move-Out Clearance Report (DocuSign Envelope F5D247C2) and derivative exhibits containing eleven documented facial defects, offered into evidence following receipt of the Notice Pattern identifying those defects.
Preparing any false or antedated paper or document with intent to produce it as genuine in any trial or proceeding. The conduct frame is coordination with the property-management chain in assembly of trial exhibits where the underlying instruments contain the documentary defects identified in the companion charging document.
Persons who aid and abet the commission of a crime are principals. The underlying offenses are alleged client perjury (PC §118) and client filing of false documents (PC §115). Knowledge element satisfied via Notice Pattern plus Global-Tech analysis.
Two or more persons conspiring to commit enumerated offenses plus an overt act in furtherance. Each in-court use of the trial exhibits is an overt act. The document-flow chain connects the property owner, property manager, contractor, and attorney of record.
Use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. Each post-notice transmission of trial exhibits, declarations, or filings — DocuSign envelopes, email transmissions, electronic court filings — is a separately countable wire after the date of documented notice.
Use of U.S. Mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. Each USPS-mailed pleading, exhibit, or notice transmitted by counsel’s office following the documented Notice Pattern is a separately countable mailing.
Duty of attorney to employ such means only as are consistent with truth and never to seek to mislead the judge by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. The conduct frame includes in-court representations during trial proceedings including characterizations regarding the disposition of the cashier’s check, the status of tenant payments, and the authenticity of the move-out packet.
The binary implication: either Silverstein consulted the client about the Notice Pattern — in which case he proceeded to trial with actual knowledge of the client’s response to the allegations — or he failed to consult, which is a Rule 1.4 violation. No third scenario exists.
An attorney shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact to a tribunal and shall not offer evidence the attorney knows to be false. “Knows” in RPC 1.0.1(f) includes actual knowledge and permits knowledge to be inferred from circumstances. The Notice Pattern plus preserved evidence supply the circumstances from which knowledge of falsity may be inferred.
An attorney shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation. Receipt of specific, documented, repeated notice through six independent channels that client representations were contradicted by preserved evidence, followed by continuation without independent verification or disclosure to the tribunal, satisfies the reckless-misrepresentation standard.
By presenting a pleading or other paper to the court, an attorney certifies that the factual contentions therein have evidentiary support. The three-day notice served June 21, 2024 was unsigned (typed name only), demanded payment to a Wells Fargo account number different from the one specified in the executed lease, and was served only on Michael Gasio while two additional tenants named on the lease were not served. CCP §1162 requires service on all occupants. The facial defects of the notice were knowable from the face of the documents available to eviction counsel before filing.
Referral routing — current status
| Authority | Counts | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Orange County District Attorney — Real Estate Fraud Unit | S-01 through S-06, S-09 | Resubmission requested in neutral tone — pending. Merits not addressed. DA engaged. |
| FBI Los Angeles Field Office | S-07, S-08 | SA H. Nguyen (hnguyen2@fbi.gov) · Active submission |
| California State Bar — Office of Chief Trial Counsel | S-09, S-10, S-11, S-12 | State Bar contact window noted by attorney Sherlock. No finding has been made. |
| OC Superior Court — Presiding Judge | S-02, S-03, S-04, S-09, S-13 | Notice of conduct affecting tribunal · sanctions consideration under CCP §128.7 |
Primary sources
- PS-01California State Bar Public Profile — Steven D. Silverstein, Bar No. 86466 — admitted 1979 — 14351 Red Hill Avenue Suite G, Tustin CA 92780
- PS-02Yahoo Mail sent record — gasio77@yahoo.com to evictions@stevendsilverstein.com — January 16, 2025, 1:40 PM PT — full headers — no bounce — express perjury warning
- PS-03UPS Signature Required deliveries N-02 through N-04 — to 14351 Red Hill Avenue Suite G Tustin — [details redacted — evidence preserved]
- PS-04Narrated video transmission N-05 — four confirmed views — approximately 60 minutes aggregate engagement — [details redacted — evidence preserved]
- PS-05OC Superior Court Minute Order — March 27, 2025 — acknowledges tender of May 28, 2024 cashier’s check
- PS-06Three-day Notice — June 21, 2024 — unsigned — WF Account #1005959166 (different from lease-specified #3312943297) — served on Michael Gasio only — CCP §§1161, 1162 dual defect
- PS-07USPS Tracking #9534914882764149935944 — cashier’s check delivered May 30, 2024 — the instrument Silverstein characterized as “returned by mail” in closing argument
- PS-08Cashier’s Check #0084411044 — $4,338.48 — sealed, uncashed — Silverstein’s final trial question: “Did you cash the check?” — Answer: No