Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Page 1
O.C. Lawyer Rightly Sanctioned for Violating Order in Client’s Family Law Case—C.A.
Opinion Says Telling Client That She Could Ignore Decree Directing Her to Hold Home-Sale Funds in Trust Was Not Protected Action in ‘Advocacy,’ Accepting Fees From Proceeds Was Breach
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
ELIZABETH NIGRO attorney |
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has affirmed an order imposing a $1,500 sanction on an Orange County family law attorney for violating a court order by telling a client that she could ignore a decree directing that proceeds from the sale of a home were to be held in trust and taking the money as payment for outstanding legal fees.
The penalty was imposed under Code of Civil Procedure §177.5, which provides:
“A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500),…payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court.”
Rejecting the characterization by Elizabeth Nigro of her actions as conduct in “advocacy” for her client’s rights, the court declared, in an unpublished opinion filed Wednesday but posted on the California Courts website on Thursday, that “counsel is free to present arguments and make recommendations on a given issue,” however, “once the court rules on those arguments,” a lawyer’s position as an advocate will not serve as a shield against sanctions.
Settlement Agreement
Nigro’s client, Cathy Spier-Chalk, had entered into a settlement agreement with her former spouse in the fall of 2023 by which they agreed that the home in question was Spier-Chalk’s separate property. However, when the ex-husband learned that Spier-Chalk had accepted an offer on the house a few months later, before judgment had been entered, he petitioned to stop the sale.
In December 2023, then-Orange Superior Court Judge Israel Claustro, who stepped down earlier this month following a guilty plea on fraud charges, ordered that if “the home is sold…, funds [must be] held in trust pending orders of the family court.” After the sale went through, Nigro, who had secured a lien on the residence relating to overdue fees, accepted $54,000 from the escrow agent; none of the proceeds from the transaction were held in trust.
Following a demand for an accounting following the sale, Spier-Chalk’s former spouse filed a motion for attorney fees and sanctions. At a hearing on the requests, Spier-Chalk testified that Nigro had pushed her to sell the house and told her that she did not need to put the proceeds into a trust account as ordered because “it is possible” that Claustro had no jurisdiction over the case.
That claim was purportedly based on the lawyer having filed a statement of disqualification against the judge in August 2023 under Code of Civil Procedure §170.3, citing an alleged failure to admonish opposing counsel for purported misconduct. Claustro responded by striking the statement based on timeliness and other concerns; Nigro did not challenge the order.
On Aug. 23, 2024, Claustro declined to award fees under Family Code §271 or Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 but awarded sanctions under §177.5, having found that Nigro had “intentionally violated” his December decree.
Justice Nathan Scott authored the opinion, joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Joanne Motoike and Justice Thomas A. Delaney, affirming the order and directing the clerk to “send a copy of the opinion to the State Bar.”
No Error
Saying that “we discern no error in the sanctions award,” Scott wrote:
“The family court’s December 2023 order specified that if Cathy sold the house, the ‘funds [must be] held in trust…’ The record reflects Nigro was aware of the order but nevertheless told Cathy the court might ‘not even have jurisdiction to make that order.’ When Cathy said she did not want to go forward with selling the house if the proceeds would be held in trust, Nigro encouraged her to close and have escrow withhold the funds so the money would not go into a trust account. After closing, the proceeds were distributed to Nigro and Cathy directly and were not held in Nigro’s trust account as ordered.”
Calling Nigro’s actions “a patent violation of a lawful court order by a party’s (then) attorney,” he remarked:
“Nigro contends she was wrongly sanctioned for advocating that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the funds held in trust. We disagree. To begin with, Nigro had no colorable basis for suggesting the family court lacked jurisdiction due to the statement of disqualification. ‘[T]he trial judge against whom’ a statement is filed ‘may order it stricken’ ‘if on its face it discloses no legal ground for disqualification’…, which is what Judge Claustro did here. And Nigro’s client failed to file a timely writ petition challenging the order striking the statement.”
The jurist added:
“In this case, Nigro was sanctioned not because she tried unsuccessfully to disqualify the judge in August 2023 or because she questioned his jurisdiction in December 2023, but because she accepted payment of funds that the family court had ordered to be held in trust. That was not advocacy before the court; it was disregard for a lawful court order.”
As to her assertion that her due process rights were violated, he pointed out, in a footnote, that “Nigro maintains” that Claustro “wrongfully excluded her” from the proceedings when Spier-Chalk was testifying. However, he noted:
“[T]he reporter’s transcript…shows no such order…..[A]fter Nigro testified that same day, the court excused her subject to recall but told her she was ‘free to remain in the courtroom’; she evidently did not stay. After [a brief period], the courtroom deputy checked if Nigro was still outside the courtroom, but she had already left.”
Declaring that §177.5 requires only “notice and opportunity to be heard,” he said that “we are not persuaded” that her due process rights were violated.
The case is Marriage of Chalk, G064812.
Judgment was entered in the dissolution proceedings in July 2024.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company