SUPPLEMENTAL FACTUAL SUBMISSION to the California State Bar — Office of Chief Trial Counsel

I. Introduction and PurposeWhy this Supplement is being filed

This Supplemental Factual Submission is filed in support of the previously submitted State Bar Complaint against Respondent Steven D. Silverstein, Esq. (California Bar No. 86466). The purpose of this supplement is to document, in a discrete evidentiary package, the pattern of repeated pre-trial notice delivered to Respondent prior to and during his representation of Dr. Phat L.K. Tran in the underlying unlawful detainer action styled Gasio v. Tran et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC.

The central factual proposition of this submission is straightforward: Respondent received, through multiple independent delivery methods and across an extended period, comprehensive written and video notice of the documentary evidence establishing that his client's factual representations to the court were false. The notice identified specific transactions, named co-conspirators, referenced preserved physical evidence, and expressly warned that perjury would be prosecuted. Respondent received this notice. Respondent proceeded to present his client's representations to the court as true. This submission establishes the receipt, the content, and the continuation.

The legal significance of this pattern is twofold. First, under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) and Rule 8.4(c) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation), Respondent's continued presentation of his client's representations after documented receipt of contradicting evidence constitutes, at minimum, reckless misrepresentation to the tribunal. Second, under the willful blindness doctrine articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), and applied in California professional-responsibility proceedings, deliberate avoidance of confirming a high probability of client misconduct is treated as the functional equivalent of actual knowledge.

This submission does not replace or amend the original complaint. It supplements the original complaint by consolidating the receipt-of-notice evidence into a single table-driven exhibit intended for efficient review by State Bar investigative staff.

II. Identification of RespondentBar #86466 · Tustin · 46+ years specialty practice

Respondent is Steven D. Silverstein, Esq., admitted to the California Bar in or about 1979 and currently maintaining his practice at 14351 Red Hill Avenue, Suite G, Tustin, California 92780. Respondent is the sole attorney at the Law Offices of Steven D. Silverstein, a firm that publicly advertises specialization in landlord eviction and unlawful detainer matters in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

Respondent's own public marketing materials, published on his firm's website stevendsilverstein.com, describe him as having been "called overly aggressive in doing these evictions," to which he responds: "I plead guilty and I will strive to kick your tenant out as fast as legally possible." Respondent represents that he regularly speaks at legal seminars to landlords, property managers, and other attorneys, and has sat by assignment as Judge Pro Tem in Orange County courts.

These public representations are relevant to this proceeding because they establish that Respondent held himself out, at all times relevant to Gasio v. Tran, as an experienced specialist in unlawful detainer procedure with decades of courtroom practice in the specific jurisdiction where the matter was tried. Respondent is not an occasional or inexperienced practitioner. His professional obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct are therefore evaluated against the standard applicable to a specialist of his self-represented experience level.

III. The January 16, 2025 Prior Written Notice11 days before trial · Yahoo Mail to all named parties

On Thursday, January 16, 2025, at approximately 1:40 PM, Complainant transmitted via Yahoo Mail a letter titled for the attention of the court and copied to all named defendants and attorneys of record in the then-pending unlawful detainer action. The recipients included:

The transmission is preserved with full Yahoo Mail server headers and timestamps. It is available for subpoena from Yahoo's server records in unaltered form. The letter was transmitted eleven (11) calendar days before the scheduled trial date of January 27, 2025. It was expressly titled as a legal notice for Respondent's attention. It contained, among other things, the following material content:

• An identification of Dr. Phat L.K. Tran as a licensed California dentist and the alleged conduct for which he was being put on notice, specifically including allegations of perjury, wrongful removal, and financial misconduct related to the tenancy;
• A specific reference to payment of the June 2024 rent by cashier's check, including the representation that a text message in the record established that "Hanson has the check," contradicting any later claim of non-payment;
• A specific reference to the second payment of $10,700 from Complainant's savings account to Tran's personal checking account made under written protest following the three-day notice;
• Identification of Hanson Le and Anna Ly as the two real estate agents whose conduct was alleged to constitute co-conspirator fraud in the lease and move-out documentation;
• An explicit warning, quoted in exact language: "Do not perjure yourself regarding what you have done with those two real estate agents";
• Express notification that the letter was intended to be read at the start of trial and that "there will be no erasing or ignoring it."

This letter is the foundational document of this submission. It establishes, as of January 16, 2025, that Respondent had in his possession a written communication from the opposing party identifying with specificity the factual and legal issues on which his client's anticipated trial testimony was alleged to be false. Respondent's subsequent presentation of that testimony at trial, without apparent independent investigation and without disclosure of the contradicting evidence to the tribunal, is the conduct complained of.

IV. Pattern of Subsequent Documented DeliveriesUPS Signature Required · Video · Continuous Portal Publication

Following the January 16, 2025 email transmission, Complainant transmitted additional packages to Respondent via United Parcel Service (UPS) at the Tustin office address, each dispatched under Signature Required service at an approximate cost of $19.00 per package. The signature-required service level is significant: it establishes that Complainant intended, at the time of transmission, to create a permanent evidentiary record of delivery.

Each delivery generated a tracking record and a recipient signature, which are available from UPS's business records under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and California Evidence Code § 1271. In addition to the UPS packages, Complainant transmitted a video presentation of approximately fifteen (15) minutes in length, walking through specific evidentiary documents and narrating the factual and legal issues that Respondent would encounter at trial. Records available to Complainant indicate that the video was viewed four (4) separate times by the receiving party, reflecting approximately one hour of deliberate engagement with the contents.

The following table summarizes the documented pattern of notice. Specific tracking numbers, signature identifications, and delivery timestamps are available from UPS business records and will be produced upon request:

Note on table: Bracketed entries are placeholders pending population from the UPS tracking archive. The complete tracking documentation, including delivery photographs where available, will be produced upon request by State Bar investigative staff or upon subpoena.

V. Legal FrameworkWhy receipt + continuation = violation

A. Rule 1.4 — Duty to Consult with Client

California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(2) requires an attorney to "reasonably consult with the client about the means by which to accomplish the client's objectives," and Rule 1.4(a)(3) requires the attorney to "keep the client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation."

Receipt by the attorney of a pretrial communication from opposing party that identifies specific financial transactions, names co-conspirator real estate licensees, references preserved physical evidence, and expressly warns that perjury charges will be pursued is categorically a "significant development." A reasonable attorney confronted with such a communication would be obligated, at minimum, to consult with his client on a point-by-point basis to determine whether the allegations were accurate and, if so, to counsel the client against the presentation of false testimony at trial.

The binary implication is dispositive. Either Respondent consulted with his client about the January 16, 2025 letter and the subsequent packages, in which case he proceeded to trial with actual knowledge of his client's response to the allegations, or Respondent failed to consult, in which case he violated Rule 1.4. There is no third scenario. Both scenarios support discipline.

B. Rule 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) prohibits an attorney from "knowingly" making a false statement of fact to a tribunal, and Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits an attorney from offering evidence the attorney "knows to be false." The term "knows" is defined in Rule 1.0.1(f) to include actual knowledge and permits knowledge to be "inferred from the circumstances."

Where an attorney has received, from a credible opposing party, written documentation specifically contradicting his client's representations, and where that documentation references preserved and independently verifiable evidence (here: a sealed cashier's check with USPS tracking, DocuSign-timestamped contract documents, bank records of a second payment under written protest, and text-message records confirming prior receipt of the first payment), the attorney's continued presentation of the contradicting client representations at trial supports a reasonable inference of knowledge of falsity.

C. Rule 8.4(c) — Conduct Involving Dishonesty

California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) prohibits an attorney from engaging in "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation." The inclusion of "reckless" conduct in the rule is dispositive of any defense grounded in bare reliance on client representations. An attorney who receives specific, documented, repeated notice that his client's position is false, and who proceeds to present that position without independent verification or disclosure, acts with the degree of recklessness contemplated by the rule.

D. Global-Tech Willful Blindness Doctrine

Respondent faces a binary choice in any subsequent proceeding. He may assert actual knowledge of the evidence, in which case he admits proceeding to trial with knowledge of his client's false representations. He may assert willful blindness — that he chose not to investigate or verify — in which case willful blindness is treated as actual knowledge under Global-Tech and its progeny. Either election supports a disciplinary finding.

VI. Supporting Evidentiary Portalgasiomirror.com — 5,000+ indexed files

Concurrent with the transmissions described in Section IV, Complainant maintains a comprehensive public evidentiary portal at gasiomirror.com. As of the date of this submission, the portal contains over 5,000 indexed files, including:

• Defendant-specific charging pages for Dr. Phat L.K. Tran, Hanson Le, Anna Ly, Steven D. Silverstein, and Richard Rosiak (former defense counsel);
• Federal and state statute charging matrices with predicate-act enumeration;
• Chronological timeline of the tenancy, eviction, and post-eviction conduct;
• Preserved correspondence archive with full Yahoo Mail server records;
• Visual exhibit gallery including photographs of the subject property, the sealed cashier's check, and related documentary evidence;
• Multi-agency referral tracking identifying filings with the agencies enumerated below.

Multi-Agency Filing References

The portal is publicly accessible, indexed by major search engines, and receives regular traffic from law-enforcement-adjacent IP ranges including multiple business-class networks in the Orange County area. Respondent has, at all times from the date of his first documented notice forward, had the practical ability to access this portal, review the evidence, and evaluate the factual accuracy of his client's representations against the preserved record.

VII. Requested ActionFive specific investigative steps

Complainant respectfully requests that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel consider this Supplemental Factual Submission as part of the record in the pending investigation of Respondent. Complainant specifically requests that investigative staff:

1. Subpoena UPS business records for all signature-required deliveries to 14351 Red Hill Avenue, Suite G, Tustin, CA 92780, addressed to Steven D. Silverstein, Esq. or the Law Offices of Steven D. Silverstein, during the period December 2024 through January 2025, to independently verify the delivery pattern described in this submission;
2. Subpoena Yahoo, Inc. for server records of the January 16, 2025 email transmission to evictions@stevendsilverstein.com, including full SMTP headers, delivery acknowledgments, and any bounce or return-to-sender records;
3. Subpoena video-hosting records, if applicable, for the transmission and view history of the fifteen-minute narrated evidence walkthrough;
4. Request Respondent's sworn statement regarding his receipt, review, and consultation with his client concerning the January 16, 2025 letter, the subsequent UPS packages, and the video transmission;
5. Evaluate Respondent's conduct under California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4, 3.3, and 8.4(c), with particular attention to the willful blindness framework articulated in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011).

VIII. Verification and SignaturePenalty of Perjury Declaration