Huntington Beach, California
Final Edition
Friday, May 22, 2026
A prior edition of this page contained a reference to a Nevada appellate matter, Rosiak v. Rosiak (2024), and characterized it in a manner the publisher has since determined to be erroneous. Information has been made known to the publisher establishing that the cited matter is a private family-law proceeding unrelated to this representation. The reference has been removed in its entirety as of the date above. Prior editions of this page, if captured, are preserved independently by the Internet Archive.
This profile consolidates the documentary record concerning Richard Joseph Rosiak, Esq., California State Bar No. 141430, who served as former defense counsel of record for tenant Michael Gasio in the unlawful detainer action captioned Phat L.K. Tran v. Michael Gasio, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC. The record reflects the June 2024 retainer, the July 18, 2024 written medical authority transfer, the August 2024 phone instruction to the client to cease sending documents, the January 10, 2025 withdrawal letter received three calendar days before the set trial date, and the subsequent pro se representation by the client from January through April 2025. The California State Bar Enforcement Division has assigned Examiner Devin Urbany to the review. No finding has been made.
This page is a pro se litigant's documentary file concerning the representation provided by Richard Joseph Rosiak, Esq., California State Bar No. 141430, in connection with the unlawful detainer action captioned Phat L.K. Tran v. Michael Gasio, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC. The matter is currently under formal review by the California State Bar Enforcement Division. Examiner: Devin Urbany. No finding of attorney misconduct has been made on this record.
Each item catalogued here is a documentary predicate — a single piece of conduct tethered to a single exhibit in the record or to a public filing. Where the predicate implicates a California Rule of Professional Conduct, a Rule of Court, or a provision of the Business & Professions Code, the provision is named. Where the predicate turns on a factual inference, the inference is marked and the underlying document is identified. Attorney discipline lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the California State Bar and the California Supreme Court; nothing on this page constitutes, or is intended to constitute, an adjudication or a recommended disciplinary outcome.
Materials are preserved at gasiomirror.com and have been transmitted to the California State Bar. Cross-referenced regulatory and investigative files are catalogued in §XIV.
Mr. Rosiak was retained by Michael Gasio in June 2024 to provide court-ready defense documents and trial representation in the unlawful detainer action brought by landlord Phat L.K. Tran. The retainer in the amount of $8,000 was paid in full at the time of engagement.
On July 18, 2024 at 5:27 PM, Mr. Gasio transmitted a written email to Mr. Rosiak — with a named third-party witness copied — formally transferring communication authority over the case to his wife, Yulia Gasio, due to a documented cardiac condition and the adverse effect of prescribed medication on his cognitive functioning. The email names Hoag Psychiatric Newport Beach as the treating facility, identifies the adverse medication (beta blocker) by effect, and directs all future correspondence and inquiries to Ms. Gasio at the email address and phone number provided in the body. The email is preserved as Exhibit R-01, embedded below.
During the November–December 2024 period, Mr. Rosiak transmitted instructions to the client that the client was to stop sending documents because counsel had "everything I need." During that same window, no substantive court filing, motion, or responsive document bearing Mr. Rosiak's signature appears on the court docket for the matter. Discovery was not propounded. The 2022 lease's three-signatory structure was not placed before the court. The USPS Certified Mail receipt for the May 30, 2024 cure-window tender (Tracking No. 9534914882764149935944) was not presented. The electronic payment ledger was not introduced.
On January 13, 2025, Mr. Rosiak transmitted a letter to the wrong client stating that a withdrawal motion had been granted and that the client would need to appear at trial on January 13, 2025. The letter did not include file transfer, a status memorandum of work completed, or identification of the pending issues for trial.
On Friday, January 10, 2025, the withdrawal letter arrived in the client's mailbox. The set trial date was Monday, January 13, 2025 — three calendar days later, with a weekend intervening. The client, 72 years old and on a cardiac monitor, appeared pro se on January 13, 2025. From that date through April 2025, the client navigated the remainder of the proceedings without counsel, including the filing of the January 21, 2025 Substitution of Attorney served on opposing counsel and landlord by United States certified mail.
Following conclusion of the matter, the California State Bar Enforcement Division opened a formal review of the representation. Examiner Devin Urbany was assigned. Server logs of gasiomirror.com reflect that the Examiner accessed the evidence portal from an Irvine, California IP address on two consecutive days, returning the second day to review exhibit materials. The California State Bar subsequently communicated in writing that an in-person interview would not be required. No finding of attorney misconduct has been made on this record; the review remains under way.
Every assertion in this summary is supported by a specific exhibit indexed in §XI. The predicates that follow in §IV restate each assertion discretely, pair it with its documentary anchor, identify the statute or rule it implicates, and characterize the strength of the anchor so the reader can assess it on its own terms.
Each predicate below is a single conduct item paired with a single documentary anchor. Weight markers — heavy, medium — describe the strength of the documentary anchor, not the severity of any alleged violation. Attorney predicates implicating the California Rules of Professional Conduct are catalogued here for the California State Bar's independent review under its exclusive jurisdiction. Nothing on this page constitutes an adjudication of any Rule of Professional Conduct or a finding of misconduct.
In June 2024, Mr. Rosiak accepted a retainer from Michael Gasio in the amount of $8,000, paid in full at engagement. The scope of representation included court-ready defense documents and trial representation in the unlawful detainer action. The fee-performance relationship established by payment in full is the baseline against which the predicates that follow are evaluated.
On July 18, 2024 at 5:27 PM, the client transmitted a written email (Exhibit R-01, embedded in §III) formally transferring communication authority over the case to Yulia Gasio. The email identifies the client's cardiac condition, names the treating facility (Hoag Psychiatric Newport Beach), identifies the medication by adverse effect (beta blocker affecting consciousness), directs all future correspondence to Yulia Gasio at the email address and phone number provided, and copies a named third-party witness with a 20-year professional background. The transmission establishes actual notice to counsel of the client's medical disability and of the designated communication representative. California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(3) requires counsel to keep the client reasonably informed; where a representative is formally designated in writing, that representative is the person through whom the §1.4 duties are to be discharged.
Review of the court docket for Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC during the period of Mr. Rosiak's representation reflects no substantive motion, no discovery request, no demurrer, no summary adjudication filing, and no evidentiary objection in writing filed by Mr. Rosiak. The zero-filing record is evaluated against the $8,000 retainer accepted for "court-ready defense documents and trial representation." California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 requires competence; Rule 1.3 requires diligence.
During the November–December 2024 window — approximately 30 to 60 days before the set trial date of January 13, 2025 — Mr. Rosiak transmitted a written communication to the client stating, in substance, that the client was to stop sending documents because counsel "had everything I need" and would present it to the court. The communication preceded a withdrawal motion filed shortly thereafter, which was subsequently granted on January 3, 2025. The written directive to cease document transmission, followed by withdrawal without filing the documents in question, is the core conduct item catalogued here. Cal. B&P Code §6068(e) establishes the fiduciary duty to the client; CRPC 1.4(a)(3) requires reasonable communication about the representation.
The client's record reflects that Mr. Rosiak's withdrawal letter arrived in the client's mailbox on Friday, January 10, 2025. Trial was set for Monday, January 13, 2025 — three calendar days later, with a weekend intervening during which the courthouse is closed. The practical effect of the timing was that the client had no court-available business day in which to retain replacement counsel before the trial date. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, governs attorney withdrawal; where a trial date is imminent, the withdrawing attorney's obligations regarding advance notice and court approval are heightened.
Following the withdrawal, the client attempted to re-engage Mr. Rosiak. The client's preserved record reflects that Mr. Rosiak stated by telephone on the afternoon of January 13, 2025 — after the client appeared in court and obtained a continuance — that reentry was "not legally permitted under California procedure." That statement is inaccurate on its face. California Code of Civil Procedure §1174.25 and California Rule of Court 3.1150 each provide reentry and substitution mechanisms applicable in unlawful detainer proceedings. The accuracy of the written statement against the text of the cited statute and rule is a matter of straightforward legal comparison. CRPC 8.4(c) prohibits conduct involving dishonesty; Cal. B&P Code §6106 establishes that acts involving moral turpitude constitute cause for discipline.
Following the January 2025 withdrawal, the client made written requests for return of the case file. The client's record reflects approximately seven weeks during which the file was not returned. During that period, successor counsel inquiries the client made were declined on the stated basis that prior-counsel work product was unavailable for review. CRPC 1.16(e) requires return of client papers and property at the termination of representation. The practical effect of non-return during a post-trial window is the subject of this predicate.
At the time of move-out, the record reflects that Mr. Rosiak's instruction was for the client's wife to deliver the keys to the Downey office. No pre-move-out inspection was requested under Cal. Civ. Code §1950.5(f), which creates a tenant's right to request an inspection prior to move-out to permit correction of deficiencies. No property-condition documentation was created on the tenant's behalf. The subsequent landlord-side Move-Out Clearance Report claiming approximately $14,548 in charges (carpet line item $7,835) went unchallenged by contemporaneous inspection record. The procedural consequence of omitting the §1950.5(f) inspection is that the tenant lacked a self-authenticating property-condition record to oppose the landlord-side damages claim.
Public records reflect two concurrent facts: (i) Mr. Rosiak operates under the firm name "Richard J. Rosiak & Associates" — including on the California State Bar licensee record (Exhibit R-02) and on the Better Business Bureau business profile; and (ii) the same California State Bar record and the same BBB profile identify a single attorney and a single principal contact ("Richard Rosiak, President"). No second attorney is listed. The BBB profile catalogues 36 years in business (since July 13, 1989) with a single listed principal. A firm name containing the plural "Associates" marketed to prospective clients implicates California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1, which prohibits communications about a lawyer's services that are false or misleading, and California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising).
The Better Business Bureau profile for "Richard Rosiak Law" (file opened September 28, 2017) records a business tenure of 36 years, continuous since July 13, 1989. Notwithstanding that tenure, the BBB's public rating status is "Not Rated" with the stated reason that the BBB "does not have sufficient information to issue a rating on this business." A 36-year-old law firm with a BBB file open since 2017 for which the BBB records insufficient information to issue a rating is catalogued here as an anomalous transparency indicator. This predicate is medium weight because the BBB's rating methodology is proprietary; the underlying factual data (36 years, file opened 2017, Not Rated, Not Accredited) are self-authenticating from the live BBB page.
The California State Bar Enforcement Division opened a formal review of the representation. Examiner: Devin Urbany. gasiomirror.com server logs reflect two consecutive-day visits from an Irvine, California IP address reviewing the exhibit portal. After the second visit, the Examiner communicated in writing that an in-person interview was not required and that the matter would proceed on the documentary record. This predicate is catalogued as a factual item: the review was initiated on the documentary evidence alone, without testimonial input from the pro se litigant. The strength of the Examiner's documentary-only posture is preserved for independent State Bar determination.
The 2022 lease for 19235 Brynn Court (DocuSign Envelope 5D80110C, executed April 23, 2022) bears three party signatures: Anna Ly (listing agent), Phat L.K. Tran (landlord), and the Gasio tenants. The landlord-side Move-Out Clearance Report (DocuSign Envelope F5D247C2, August 22, 2024) bears effectively one authorized signatory. The facial discrepancy between the three-signatory contract and the one-signatory move-out document is a material evidentiary issue in any unlawful detainer proceeding based on that contract. The record of Mr. Rosiak's representation does not reflect that this discrepancy was placed before the trial court.
The tenancy payment record reflects continuous electronic rent payments through the 2022 and 2024 lease terms. The payment ledger was available to counsel throughout the representation. The unlawful detainer action was predicated on a Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit alleging non-payment. The electronic payment ledger, if introduced, is directly responsive to a non-payment theory. The record of Mr. Rosiak's representation does not reflect that the payment ledger was introduced as evidence.
USPS tracking record 9534914882764149935944 reflects a cashier's check delivered by United States certified mail to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties and signed for at the BHHS office on May 30, 2024 at 3:43 PM. The delivery occurred during the statutory cure window of the subsequent June 21, 2024 Three-Day Notice. The USPS tracking record and signed delivery receipt together are self-authenticating documentary evidence of cure-window tender. The record of Mr. Rosiak's representation does not reflect that this tracking record was placed before the court.
A text exchange preserved in the tenant's file reflects landlord Phat L.K. Tran's written acknowledgment that he had not known the tenant had paid rent, consistent with the payment having been routed to the agent's account rather than to his own. The text exchange is relevant to the non-payment theory underlying the unlawful detainer action. The record of Mr. Rosiak's representation does not reflect that the text exchange was placed before the trial court.
The tenant's file reflects a dishwasher repair bill dated before the tenant's move-in, for which the tenant made a cooperative payment of $350. This record establishes the landlord's practice of billing the tenant for pre-tenancy conditions. The record is relevant to the broader damages-claim analysis in the unlawful detainer matter. The record of Mr. Rosiak's representation does not reflect that this document was placed before the court.
The Move-Out Clearance Report (DocuSign Envelope F5D247C2, August 22, 2024), on which landlord-side damages were claimed, carries blank "Submitted by" and date fields on the face of the document. That defect is visible on the face of the document without extrinsic evidence. The record of Mr. Rosiak's representation does not reflect that the signature/authorship defect was raised in any filing, evidentiary objection, or pre-trial motion.
The client's preserved record reflects a speaker phone conversation with wife communication from home to Mr. Rosiak during the 2024 window, of the January 13, 2025 trial date, directing the client to stop sending documents. The substance of the communication, as preserved, reads:
Don't send me any more documents. I have everything I need. When I put it up to court, they'll see we're not bluffing. Oral communication from counsel · summer 2024 · client-preserved record
The communication carries three documentary implications that the California State Bar is in the best position to evaluate in its formal review:
Following the withdrawal, the client attempted re-engagement. The client's record reflects Mr. Rosiak's written response that reentry was going to happen,"not legally permitted under California procedure." The accuracy of that statement is determined by straightforward reference to the California statutes and rules actually governing reentry and substitution in unlawful detainer proceedings:
The phone statement on Monday afternoon January 13th 2025 that reentry was "not legally permitted" runs counter to the face of both provisions. California Business & Professions Code §6068(d) requires an attorney "never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law" — with §6068(d)'s duty extending correspondingly to false statements of law made to a client about the available procedural mechanisms. California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) prohibits conduct involving dishonesty.
The following table catalogues specific evidentiary items that were available in the tenant's file during the representation period and that, per the trial docket, do not reflect presentation in the unlawful detainer matter. Each item's legal significance is stated in neutral terms. The table's purpose is documentary inventory, not adjudication.
| Evidentiary Item | Legal Significance | Status on Docket |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 lease with three signatories (Anna Ly, Phat Tran, tenants) · DocuSign Envelope 5D80110C | Three-signatory lease compared against one-authorized-signatory move-out document is a facial evidentiary issue. | Not reflected as presented |
| Move-Out Clearance Report · DocuSign Envelope F5D247C2 · blank authorship and date fields | Face-of-document authorship defect in the damages-claim instrument. | Not reflected as objected to |
| Electronic payment ledger · Wells Fargo · continuous rent payments through tenancy | Directly responsive to the Three-Day Notice's non-payment theory. | Not reflected as presented |
| USPS Certified Mail 9534914882764149935944 · delivered 5/30/2024 3:43 PM · signed at BHHS | Cure-window tender of the cashier's check during the statutory cure period of the Three-Day Notice. | Not reflected as presented |
| Pre-tenancy dishwasher repair bill · dated month before move-in · cooperative $350 payment by tenant | Pattern evidence that landlord charged tenant for pre-existing conditions. | Not reflected as presented |
| Landlord text acknowledgment · "I did not know you paid rent to the Hanson account" | Landlord-side written acknowledgment of payment made to the designated routing account. | Not reflected as presented |
| Airbnb-conversion indicators during active tenancy · bunk bed frame removal (June 2024) | Landlord-side acts during active tenancy relevant to breach and retaliation theories. | Not reflected as presented |
| Pre-move-out inspection request · Cal. Civ. Code §1950.5(f) | Statutory right to inspection; creates baseline property-condition record for damages defense. | Not reflected as requested |
Two public records establish the firm-structure facts:
| Source | Firm Representation | Listed Attorneys / Principals |
|---|---|---|
| CA State Bar Licensee Record | Richard J Rosiak & Associates | One listed attorney · Richard Joseph Rosiak #141430 · admitted 1989 |
| BBB Business Profile | Alternate names: "Richard J. Rosiak & Associates" · "Law Office Of Richard J. Rosiak" | Principal Contact: Richard Rosiak, President · Sole listed contact |
The State Bar licensee record (Exhibit R-02, embedded in §II) confirms a single licensed attorney under license number 141430. The BBB profile catalogues a single principal contact. The firm name marketed to prospective clients includes the plural "Associates." California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 prohibits communications concerning a lawyer's services that are false or misleading; Cal. B&P Code §17500 separately prohibits false advertising.
| Category | Description | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Retainer · Unearned Fees | $8,000 paid in full in June 2024. Zero substantive court filings on record during representation. | $8,000 |
| Pro Se Research & Preparation | Out-of-pocket costs incurred by the client to research procedure, draft filings, and prepare for trial without counsel from January through April 2025. | $4,995 |
| Adverse Judgment Component | Damages component entered against the tenant, in part traceable to the evidence catalogued in §VII that was available but not placed before the trial court. | $20,923 |
| Court-Ordered Payment | April 22, 2025 cashier's check payable to Phat Tran and Steven Silverstein jointly — paid under written protest. | $5,338 |
| Medical Aggravation | Cost of medical visits and cardiac monitoring during and after the three-month pro se period under documented high-stress conditions. | TBD |
| DOCUMENTED ECONOMIC DAMAGES · MINIMUM | $39,256+ | |
| Exhibit | Description | Predicate |
|---|---|---|
| R-01 | July 18, 2024 · 5:27 PM email "Felonies against us" · medical authority transfer to Yulia Gasio · embedded in §III | PRED-02 |
| R-02 | California State Bar licensee record for Richard Joseph Rosiak #141430 · Active · 8137 3rd St Fl 1 Downey CA 90241-3747 · embedded in §II | PRED-09 |
| R-03 | Better Business Bureau business profile · bbb.org/us/ca/downey/profile/family-lawyer/richard-rosiak-law-1216-736170 · referenced live | PRED-09 · PRED-10 |
| R-04 | Retainer agreement · bank payment record of $8,000 | PRED-01 |
| R-05 | OC Superior Court docket for Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC during period of representation | PRED-03 |
| R-06 | Speaker phone communication with wife on line August 2024 · "Don't send me any more documents. I have everything I need." | PRED-04 |
| R-07 | Withdrawal letter · mailbox arrival Friday January 10, 2025 · trial Monday January 13, 2025 | PRED-05 |
| R-08 | Oral statement from counsel asserting reentry was "not legally permitted" · compared to CCP §1174.25 and Cal. R. Ct. 3.1150 | PRED-06 |
| R-09 | File-return requests · successor counsel declinations · 7-week retention record | PRED-07 |
| R-10 | Key-delivery record · absence of Cal. Civ. Code §1950.5(f) inspection request | PRED-08 |
| R-11 | Firm-name record · CA State Bar licensee page · BBB profile · website | PRED-09 |
| R-12 | BBB live profile · 36 years · Not Rated · Not Accredited · insufficient information | PRED-10 |
| R-13 | CA State Bar correspondence · Examiner Devin Urbany assignment · Hostinger access logs for Examiner portal visits | PRED-11 |
| R-14 | 2022 lease DocuSign Envelope 5D80110C (three signatories) vs. Move-Out Report DocuSign F5D247C2 | PRED-12 |
| R-15 | Electronic payment ledger · Wells Fargo · continuous rent payments through tenancy | PRED-13 |
| R-16 | USPS Certified Mail tracking 9534914882764149935944 · delivered 5/30/2024 · 3:43 PM · signed at BHHS | PRED-14 |
| R-17 | Tran-Gasio text exchange · landlord acknowledgment of payment | PRED-15 |
| R-18 | Pre-move-in dishwasher repair bill · cooperative $350 tenant payment | PRED-16 |
| R-19 | Move-Out Clearance Report DocuSign F5D247C2 · face-of-document authorship defect | PRED-17 |
This page is a documentary record compiled by a pro se litigant. It does not purport to be a finding of attorney misconduct, an adjudication, or a legal opinion. The following limitations are material to its reading:
gasiomirror.com is published as press under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of California. The publisher is the author. Editorial control rests with the publisher.
The publisher selects what is published, when, and for how long. Prior editions are not retained on this site for public access — no more than any newspaper or magazine retains its back issues on its racks.
Historical preservation is the work of the Internet Archive, an independent institution. If back issues of this publication exist, they exist there, outside the publisher's hands. The publisher makes no representation about what any prior edition contained or whether any particular edition was captured.
Source documents are not held here. They are held by the Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC) and by the regulatory agencies catalogued under Agency Proceedings. Inquiries about source documents belong with them.
© 1996–2026 Michael A. Gasio. All rights reserved.
The contents of this website — including the editorial text, compilations, commentary, captions, photographs, screen captures, audio recordings, video recordings, the underlying HTML source code and stylesheets, the JavaScript, the SVG graphics, the embedded data structures, the document selection and arrangement, and the editorial sequencing of evidentiary exhibits — constitute the original work of the publisher and are protected as literary, pictorial, audiovisual, and compilation works under the following authorities:
This site is made publicly accessible at no charge as a public-interest record. Free access does not constitute a license, transfer, or waiver of any right reserved under 17 U.S.C. § 106.
Prohibited absent prior written authorization from the publisher:Primary-source documents authored by third parties are reproduced as evidentiary exhibits. The publisher does not claim copyright in those underlying public records.
Enforcement remedies: