Documented Courtroom Interaction with “Clint”

This page records the events involving the attorney identified as Clint, who temporarily stood in as counsel of record for landlord Phat L.K. Tran after the tenant’s prior attorney, Richard Rosiak, abandoned representation without returning the defense file. This event is legally significant because Clint received actual notice of perjury, false filings, payment concealment, and fraud before the continuation of proceedings.

I. Context: Pro Se Status Created by Attorney Abandonment

Following repeated failures by attorney Richard Rosiak—including withholding the tenant’s evidence file and misrepresenting the case as “resolved”—the tenant was effectively returned to pro se status as early as December. At the time of the hearing, no defense file, evidence binder, or representation was available, making immediate substitute counsel unattainable.

Multiple firms declined representation due to:
the missing defense file,
the two-week window before jury trial,
and the complexity of reconstructing evidence.

One firm quoted a required $75,000 up-front retainer to enter the matter.

II. Timeline of Clint’s Involvement

1. Morning Calendar Call

Tenant appeared and answered “Present.”
No attorney appeared for Silverstein or Tran.
Clint informed the court he did not see opposing counsel and could not proceed.

2. Midday Recess — Hallway Discussion

Clint sat by the courtroom door during the 90-minute lunch recess.
The tenant, acting pro se, presented a complete binder of evidence.
Clint reviewed:
- USPS delivery confirmations,
- copies of payments,
- Wells Fargo bank records,
- the owner’s admission (“Hanson has the check”),
- and the certified-mail chain proving prior payment.

Clint stated he “would not want to represent that person” after reviewing the documents, 
acknowledging the landlord’s narrative was false.

3. Legal Impact of Clint’s Knowledge

Once Clint reviewed the binder, he held actual notice that:

His client had lied about nonpayment.
The eviction filing was based on false financial claims.
Critical evidence (USPS check delivery) contradicted the complaint.
False statements had been submitted to the court.

Under the California Rules of Professional Conduct:

CRPC 3.3 — Duty to correct false statements to the court.
CRPC 1.2 & 1.4 — Duty to inform supervising counsel.
CRPC 5.1 — Duty of oversight when acting on behalf of a firm.

Clint was legally obligated to take remedial steps.

III. Return of Binder & Post-Hearing Conduct

After court reconvened, Clint refused to accept the binder permanently and claimed he had “no way to reach Silverstein,” despite serving as attorney of record for the hearing. This refusal does not negate the fact that he already possessed the information—thus actual notice had already attached.

Once an attorney knows their client is engaged in perjury or fraud, the obligation to take corrective action  
cannot be undone by returning evidence or disclaiming involvement.

IV. Legal Significance

1. Opposing Counsel with Verified Knowledge of Fraud

Clint’s review of the binder establishes that opposing counsel (Silverstein’s office) was in possession of accurate payment data, USPS confirmations, and owner admissions of payment. Continuing to litigate the matter after this knowledge represents:

Assisting perjury
Failure to correct false evidence
Violation of duties to the tribunal (CRPC 3.3)
Concealment of material facts

2. Tenant’s Difficulty Securing Counsel Is Legally Explained

Because Rosiak withheld the defense file and withdrew late, and because the matter was set for trial within two weeks, acquiring new representation was practically and professionally impossible. This clarifies why the tenant proceeded pro se and why the record reflects that the case structure was fundamentally distorted by attorney misconduct.