California State Bar investigator contacted Michael Gasio by email requesting a phone interview. Gasio responded that his wife Yulia — a named party on the contract — must also participate, and forwarded the link to the gasiomirror.com evidence portal with instruction to review raw evidence only. Server logs confirmed the investigator accessed the portal from an Irvine, CA IP address twice over two consecutive days — returning the second day to download all exhibit images. Shortly after, the Bar sent a second email: "No need to speak — sent to enforcement." The investigator made his determination from the evidence alone. The portal convicted Rosiak without a single phone call.
| # | Charge | Statute | Factual Basis | Portal Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
01 |
Unauthorized Pre-Trial Withdrawal Cal. RPC 1.16(d) — Per Se Malpractice |
Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362 Cal. RPC 1.16(d) Henriksen v. Great American Savings (1992) |
Withdrawal letter placed in mailbox Friday January 10, 2025. Trial set Monday January 13, 2025. No court order approving withdrawal obtained. Two intervening days were Saturday and Sunday — courthouse closed. Client had zero meaningful opportunity to retain replacement counsel. Henriksen held this constitutes malpractice as a matter of law. | Withdrawal letter (postmarked Jan 10); Trial docket Jan 13; Court calendar; Rosiak name on docket at trial date confirming incomplete withdrawal process |
02 |
False Statement to Client — "Reentry Not Legally Permitted" Cal. RPC 8.4(c) — Dishonesty / BPC §6106 |
Cal. RPC 8.4(c) BPC §6106 (Moral Turpitude) CCP §1174.25 (refutes the lie) |
After abandoning client, Rosiak stated in writing that reentry was "not legally permitted under California procedure." This is demonstrably false. CCP §1174.25 and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1150 both allow reentry in unlawful detainer proceedings. Rosiak used this lie to prevent Michael from seeking his return and to block new counsel options. | Rosiak's written reentry denial; CCP §1174.25 statutory text; Rule 3.1150; correspondence file showing reliance on false statement by client |
03 |
Failure to Perform — Zero Court-Ready Deliverables Cal. RPC 1.1 — Competence / Breach of Contract |
Cal. RPC 1.1 Civil Code §1709 CACI 601 (Legal Malpractice) |
Rosiak accepted $8,000 retainer to provide court-ready defense documents and trial representation. He filed no discovery motions, no evidence challenges, no standing motions, no cross-complaint. He never contacted opposing counsel Silverstein. He never presented the three-signatory contract, the electronic payment ledger, the cashier's check evidence, or the pre-tenancy dishwasher bill. His total move-out contribution: driving keys to his Downey office — a task he billed for. | Retainer agreement; zero court filings by Rosiak; complete evidence portal (1,400+ exhibits) available throughout representation and never utilized |
04 |
Failure to Communicate — Medical Disability Ignored Cal. RPC 1.4(a)(3) — Communication |
Cal. RPC 1.4(a)(3) 42 U.S.C. §12132 (ADA Title II) W&I Code §15610.07 |
On July 18, 2024, Michael provided written notice of his cardiac disability and transferred case communication authority to Yulia Gasio. Rosiak acknowledged receipt and subsequently ignored both Michael and Yulia. He was aware that Michael could not make confident legal decisions under beta-blocker and Lexapro treatment. His failure to communicate with the designated representative during a critical eviction defense is a direct Rule 1.4 violation — and under ADA Title II, a denial of legal services on the basis of disability. | July 18, 2024 medical authority transfer letter; Cardiac monitor documentation; Pharmacy records (beta-blocker, Lexapro); Subsequent unanswered correspondence from Yulia Gasio |
05 |
File Withholding — 7-Week Obstruction Cal. RPC 1.16(e) — Return of Client Files |
Cal. RPC 1.16(e) BPC §6068(e) — Fiduciary Duty PC §503 (Embezzlement of File) |
After withdrawal, Rosiak refused to return Michael's case file for approximately seven weeks. During this period, every attorney Michael contacted declined to take the case without knowing what work prior counsel had performed. The file withholding was not passive negligence — it was the mechanism that blocked successor representation during the most critical post-withdrawal phase. Every hearing Michael navigated pro se during those seven weeks traces directly to Rosiak's file retention. | Written requests for file return; Rosiak's non-responses; Attorney refusal letters citing missing prior-counsel file; Case hearing dates during the 7-week window |
06 |
Move-Out Fraud Enablement — Keys Only, No Inspection CC §1950.5 — Security Deposit Obligation |
CC §1950.5(f) Cal. RPC 1.1 CACI 601 |
At move-out, Rosiak's sole action was instructing Michael's wife to drive the keys to his Downey office. Yulia drove to Downey as the moving truck was loading — giving Rosiak the keys before August 1. Rosiak never performed a walk-through, never documented property condition, never requested a landlord pre-move-out inspection, and never challenged the subsequent $20,980 damage invoice from LY Construction (Tran's family entity). Without an independent inspection, the invoice had no defense. Rosiak billed for key delivery. | Yulia's driving record to Downey on moving day; Rosiak billing record for key delivery; $20,980 LY Construction invoice; CC §1950.5(f) (landlord must offer pre-move-out inspection); No defense inspection on record |
07 |
False Advertising — Fake "Associates" Firm Structure BPC §17500 / 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud |
BPC §17500 (False Advertising) 18 U.S.C. §1343 (Wire Fraud) Cal. RPC 7.1 (False Statements re: Services) |
Rosiak's website and all advertising materials represent "Richard J. Rosiak & Associates" and "over 30 years of combined legal experience" from "our attorneys" — plural. His own State Bar profile and firm website confirm he is the sole listed attorney, admitted in 1989. The BBB confirms the firm is not accredited and lists no associates. Michael hired what he believed was a staffed firm with multiple attorneys. He hired one man operating under a deceptive firm name. This misrepresentation induced the retainer — constituting wire fraud transmitted via the firm's website and email. | Firm website screenshots (rosiaklaw.com) — "our attorneys," "combined experience"; State Bar profile — single attorney listed; BBB profile — Not Accredited, no associates; Retainer agreement signed under false firm representation |
08 |
Client Trust Account Misappropriation (Pattern Evidence) BPC §6091.1 / Cal. RPC 1.15 |
BPC §6091.1 Cal. RPC 1.15 (Safekeeping Funds) FRE 404(b) — Pattern/Habit |
In Nevada divorce proceedings (Richard J. Rosiak v. Margarita Rosiak, 2024), the Nevada Court of Appeals documented that Rosiak "occasionally withdrew money from his client trust account to repay personal debts, although he would later replenish the account." This pattern of treating client trust funds as personal operating capital — even if temporarily — is a serious professional conduct violation under Cal. RPC 1.15 and BPC §6091.1. Under FRE 404(b), this documented pattern is admissible to prove absence of mistake and habit in financial conduct affecting clients. | Richard J. Rosiak v. Margarita Rosiak (Nev. Ct. App. 2024) — published appellate opinion; Client trust account withdrawal findings; State Bar enforcement referral |
This single email establishes three critical facts simultaneously:
| Evidence Available to Rosiak | Legal Significance | Rosiak's Action |
|---|---|---|
| Contract with 3 signatories (Tran, Anna Ly, Hanson Le) | Establishes all three as principals — creates direct agency liability and conflicts of interest for all parties | NEVER PRESENTED |
| Move-out document with only 1 signatory | Discrepancy between 3-person contract and 1-person move-out is facial fraud — any judge seeing both would question the entire eviction premise | NEVER PRESENTED |
| Electronic payment ledger — all payments current | Destroys the nonpayment theory entirely — every payment reflected as received, on time or early | NEVER PRESENTED |
| Cashier's check — USPS certified mail during cure window — "H.H." signature May 30, 2024 | The entire unlawful detainer is based on a default that legally never occurred — the check was tendered, signed for, and never cashed. No default = no UD. | NEVER PRESENTED |
| Pre-tenancy dishwasher repair bill (dated month before move-in) | Tran was billing for pre-existing damage — Michael's cooperative payment of $350 establishes good faith and exposes Tran's practice of charging tenants for pre-tenancy defects | NEVER PRESENTED |
| Tran text: "Sorry I did not know you paid rent to the Hanson account" | Owner's own text destroys nonpayment claim — he admitted in writing he didn't know rent had been paid because it went to his own agent's account. He knew payment was made. | NEVER PRESENTED |
| Vui removed bunk bed frame during active tenancy (June 2024) | Tran was operating Airbnb conversion during the lease — direct evidence of breach of the rental agreement and retaliatory eviction motive | NEVER PRESENTED |
| No signature on move-out damage report | Any first-year law student knows not to pay an unsigned damage invoice. Rosiak never challenged it. | NEVER CHALLENGED |
"Our attorneys bring over 30 years of combined legal experience."
"When you retain the services of Richard Rosiak Law, you'll have the confidence of knowing that your attorney has..."
Firm name: "Richard J. Rosiak & Associates"
State Bar License No. 141430: single attorney listed.
BBB: Not Accredited — no associates documented.
Admitted to bar: 1989. Sole attorney of record at this firm since inception.
Michael Gasio hired what he believed was a staffed firm. He hired one man.
Under California Evidence Code §1101(b), evidence of similar acts is admissible to prove intent, knowledge, motive, plan, and absence of mistake. Four independent Yelp reviewers documented the same pattern Gasio experienced — abandonment at or near trial, failure to appear, and retention of fees.
In the published Nevada Court of Appeals decision Richard J. Rosiak v. Margarita Rosiak (2024), the court documented that Rosiak "occasionally withdrew money from his client trust account to repay personal debts, although he would later replenish the account." This is not Michael Gasio's allegation — it is a finding in a published appellate court opinion from his own divorce proceedings.
Under California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 and Business and Professions Code §6091.1, client trust funds are inviolable. Any withdrawal for personal use — regardless of subsequent replenishment — is a disciplinable offense. This finding has been submitted to the California State Bar enforcement examiner as FRE 404(b) pattern evidence.
Source: Richard J. Rosiak v. Margarita Rosiak, Nev. Ct. App. (2024) — Published Opinion | Cal. RPC 1.15 | BPC §6091.1
| Category | Description | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Retainer — Unearned Fees | $8,000 paid in full. Zero court-ready deliverables produced. Zero appearances. Zero filings. | $8,000 |
| Pro Se Legal Research & Preparation | Out-of-pocket costs incurred by Michael to research procedure, draft filings, and prepare for trial without counsel — Jan through Apr 2025. | $4,995 |
| Adverse Judgment — Security Deposit | Judgment amount entered against Michael in part traceable to Rosiak's failure to present the payment ledger, the cashier's check, and the pre-tenancy damage evidence. | $20,923 |
| Court-Ordered Payment Under Protest | April 22, 2025 cashier's check payable to Tran and Silverstein jointly — paid under written protest. Silverstein personally received eviction proceeds from a fraud-based UD. | $5,338 |
| Medical Aggravation — Cardiac Event Risk | 72-year-old on cardiac monitor forced into three months of pro se litigation under documented high-stress conditions. Medical cost escalation and aggravation of existing beta-blocker-managed condition. Non-economic damages estimated. | TBD — Expert |
| MINIMUM DOCUMENTED ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $39,256+ | |