Richard Rosiak

I. Summary of Role

Attorney Richard Rosiak was engaged by tenant Michael A. Gasio to provide legal assistance during a complex real-estate fraud and eviction matter. Rather than protecting his client’s interests, his conduct — including failure to submit evidence, failure to contact key witnesses, and withdrawal on the eve of trial — materially advanced the fraudulent eviction and deprived a senior client of a fair opportunity to be heard.

His actions are central to the attorney-misconduct component of the case and raise questions of professional negligence, attorney deceit, and potential elder abuse via abandonment in the midst of litigation.

II. Identity & Engagement

• Name: Richard J. Rosiak
• Role: Private defense counsel retained by tenant in UD/fraud context.
• Engagement: Received substantial documentation, evidence binder, and instructions from client.
• Expectation: To prepare filings, protect tenant’s rights, and challenge fraudulent claims.

Instead, he disengaged at the most critical stage, leaving his client pro se with limited time and capacity.

III. Timeline of Conduct

• Engagement Period: Receives binder of evidence including USPS proof, bank records, emails, leases, inspector notes.
• Pre-Trial (Weeks Before Hearing): Fails to file evidence; tells client “the matter is resolved” despite no valid order.
• Days Before Trial: Issues withdrawal letter via mail; letter arrives just before court date.
• Day of Trial: Does not personally appear; client forced to proceed pro se.
• Post-Trial Period: Refuses to return client file and critical evidence despite multiple written demands.

IV. Evidence Relevant to This Actor

Evidence documenting Mr. Rosiak’s misconduct includes:

• Written communications where he acknowledges receiving extensive evidence from the client.
• “Matter is resolved” correspondence, inconsistent with court record and continuing harm.
• Withdrawal letter dated days before trial, delivered too late for client to secure replacement counsel.
• Failure to file any of the client’s key exhibits (USPS logs, check copies, DocuSign evidence).
• Client demands for file return, and his refusal to produce those records.
• Proof that he was aware of the client’s age, heart issues, and medical stress at the time.

Collectively, this evidence supports a finding that Mr. Rosiak’s conduct was not merely negligent, but materially prejudicial and potentially deceptive.

V. Statutory & Ethical Exposure

A. California Business & Professions Code

• B&P § 6103: Willful disobedience or violation of attorney duties.
• B&P § 6106: Moral turpitude — acts involving dishonesty or corruption.
• B&P § 6128: Attorney deceit and collusion; neglect leading to client injury.

B. California Rules of Professional Conduct

• Rule 1.1 — Competence: Failure to prepare, investigate, and present key evidence.
• Rule 1.3 — Diligence: Lack of action in face of imminent trial and serious client exposure.
• Rule 1.4 — Communication: Misleading statements (“matter resolved”) and poor notification.
• Rule 1.16(d): Withdrawal in a manner that prejudiced the client; failure to return client file.

C. Elder Abuse & Civil Exposure

• WIC § 15610.30: Financial/rights-based abuse of elder, via abandonment and facilitating wrongful judgment.
• Civil Liability: Potential malpractice and damages for lost tenancy, costs, and emotional distress.

VI. Misconduct Pattern

• Accepted representation, then failed to use critical evidence.
• Did not contact key witnesses (agents, inspector, law enforcement).
• Suggested resolution where none existed, causing client to rely on false security.
• Withdrew immediately before trial, ensuring maximum prejudice.
• Retained client documents contrary to mandatory return rules.
• Ignored follow-up attempts to obtain assistance or records.

The pattern suggests an abdication of responsibilities at a time when the client was most vulnerable.

VII. Enterprise Connections

• To Phat Tran and Silverstein: By failing to oppose their fraudulent narrative, he effectively assisted their scheme.
• To Outcome: His inaction and withdrawal directly contributed to the success of a fraudulent eviction and subsequent rent-gouging.
• To Systemic Harm: His misconduct undermined the integrity of the judicial process and damaged trust in legal representation for vulnerable tenants.

VIII. Agency Referral Recommendations

• State Bar of California: B&P §§ 6103, 6106, 6128; Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16.
• Elder Abuse Units: Evaluate contributions to elder financial and legal harm.
• Civil Courts: Malpractice and damages claims as separate action.

IX. Notes for Investigators

• Compare his known access to evidence with what was actually filed.
• Establish that his withdrawal was timed to prevent effective defense.
• Obtain correspondence acknowledging the client’s medical and age status.
• Assess whether any communications with landlord’s counsel occurred prior to withdrawal.

His role may be framed as a failure that materially aided the fraudulent eviction and resulting financial exploitation.