Friday, August 14, 2026
Page 3
C.A. Imposes $5,000 Sanction on Lawyer for Lack of Candor
Attorney Sought Writ, Saying Dates of Two Trials—One Set for June 29 in Orange County, the Other for May 15 in San Diego Superior Court—Conflicted; Justices Not Told Earlier of Two Proceedings Had Been Moved to October
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has imposed a $5,000 sanction on a lawyer who sought a writ aimed at postponing a trial based on a supposed conflict with the starting date of another proceeding without telling the justices that problem had been remedied.
In an unpublished “By the Court” opinion, filed Wednesday, Acting Presiding Justice Maurice Sanchez and Justices Martha K. Gooding and Nathan Scott declared:
“We are obligated to take appropriate corrective action when we are convinced an attorney has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, including a breach of the duty of candor.”
They spotlighted Rule 3.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not: [¶] knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”
San Diego Matter
San Diego attorney Byron K. Husted of PHG Law Group on May 7 filed a writ petition representing that trial was slated for June 29 in the Orange Superior Court, in the case of Reagan West v. Sharon Zack, but that another trial he was handling, in the San Diego Superior Court, was scheduled to start May 15, and there was a conflict. On May 10, attorney J. Thomas Gilbert of Cummins & White, LLP, representing Zack, filed informal opposition pointing out that on April 28, the San Diego trial had been continued to Oct. 16.
Div. Three on May 14 invited an informal explanation by May 22 as to why statements were made in the writ petition “if not true.” Husted responded on May 21 that what he should have said was that a postponement was needed for purpose of conducting discovery.
On June 23, the writ petition was denied and Husted was ordered to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed “on the ground that Husted violated his duty of candor to the tribunal.”
He responded on July 6; two days later, oral argument was set for July 23; argument took place and the cause was submitted.
‘Discovery’ Not Mentioned
The justices said on Wednesday:
“We are unpersuaded by Husted’s attempt to reframe his argument in support of his requested trial continuance as being based on the need for additional time to conclude discovery. Although the reply claims the continuance request was ‘not based on conflicting trial dates,’ the opening sentence of the writ petition filed in this court states that a trial continuance is needed ‘due mainly to the fact that [petitioner’s] counsel had a separate unrelated case be given priority to a [90-year-old] Plaintiff where trial was advanced six months, landing trial call unexpectedly in conflict with [petitioners] case here’ (Italics added.) The petition never mentions the word ‘discovery.’ Nor does it cite the complexity of the San Diego action or the time spent preparing for that trial.”
The opinion points out:
“The petition (as it was filed on May 7. 2026) was plainly frivolous when filed in light of the undisclosed information about the San Diego action. No court would issue extraordinary writ relief to remedy a trial conflict that no longer existed. No reasonable attorney would file a writ petition on this factual record, making the arguments that were made in the petition filed on May 7, 2026.”
Limits to Advocacy
Sanchez, Gooding, and Scott remarked:
“When attorneys make misleading statements to courts or fail to promptly update courts when new facts emerge that are relevant to a matter under consideration, courts unnecessarily expend resources assessing issues under false premises. And only when counsel’s zealous advocacy is exercised consistent with counsel’s duty of candor to the court can the judicial system achieve its goal of ascertaining the truth.”
The PHG website says of Husted:
“He believes in aggressively advocating for his clients and always places their needs and goals first above all else.”
The justices said that while they “appreciate Husted’s concession in his response to our OSC that his conduct would ‘lead any reasonable person to question’ his ‘reasoning, logic, and intent,’ and “earnestly” offered to fall “on his sword,” they “remain persuaded that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, that violation resulted in the filing of a frivolous petition, and Husted should be sanctioned.”
He was ordered to apprise the State Bar of the sanction, payable to the court.
Previous Efforts
The subject of the writ petition—an April 27 denial of an ex parte request for advancement of a hearing on a motion for a continuance—was one in a series of bids aimed at obtaining a delay of the trial. Trial was scheduled for June 29; the soonest a motion could be heard in normal course was Aug. 10; Husted sought to advance the hearing.
In denying the request, Orange Superior Court Judge Bradley Erdosi said:
“Plaintiff Reagan West’s Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date on Motion to Continue Trial…is denied. Ex Parte Applicant has failed to set forth sufficient facts demonstrating irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting the requested relief on an ex parte basis.”
On April 1, Erdosi had denied an ex parte motion for a continuance, saying:
“The Court notes that just over one month ago, Plaintiff filed a similar ex parte application requesting continuance of the trial in this matter. That ex parte was opposed by Defendant and denied by this Court.”
The judge commented:
“The Court is also concerned about counsel Byron Husted’s filing of the instant ex parte application given he was made aware that J. Thomas Gilbert, counsel for Defendant and Cross-Complainant Sharon Zacky, is out of the country and on a prepaid vacation. The Notice of Unavailability…was filed herein and served on Mr. Husted on February 2, 2026. In his Notice, Mr. Gilbert states that he is counsel of record for Defendant and ‘will be traveling out of the county on a prepaid vacation and unavailable during the period of time beginning Tuesday, March 24, 2026, through and including Friday, April 10, 2026.’ ”
Further Motion
While the writ petition was pending in the Court of Appeal, Husted made a fresh attempt to obtain a continuance. Erdosi responded in a June 10 minute order:
“Before the Court is Plaintiff Reagan West’s third ex parte application in the last 110 days seeking to continue the trial in this matter….Each previous ex parte has been denied. Trial in this matter is scheduled for June 29, 2026.”
Husted was now claiming illness. Erdosi quoted Gilbert as saying:
“The undersigned takes no pleasure in presenting this opposition. Under normal circumstances, accommodating an opposing attorney’s illness would be automatic. These are not normal circumstances….Defendant and the undersigned have no reason to believe that Plaintiffs attorney Byron K. Husted’s purported sudden illness is legitimate.”
Gilbert recounted that Husted had claimed in 2024 that his client was “severely sick” and therefore could not show up for his scheduled deposition. However, he noted, two private detectives undertook surveillance, establishing the falsity of the lawyer’s claim that illness precluded normal activity on the part of the client.
On June 16, trial was continued to July 27; on July 20, it was put off to Jan. 4.
The Court of Appeal’s decision came in West v. Superior Court, G066888.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company