Thursday, January 22, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Lawyer Sanctioned for Filing ‘Totally’ Meritless Writ Petition
In Opinion Styled as ‘Cautionary Tale,’ California Attorney Ordered to Pay $25,000 for Making Accusations of Impropriety Against Orange Superior Court Judge Without ‘Scintilla’ of Supporting Evidence
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has sanctioned an attorney $25,000 for filing a writ petition containing allegations of impropriety by an Orange Superior Court judge without any factual support for the claims, rejecting an attempt to characterize the action as advocacy in support of a client who purportedly “earnestly” believed the allegations to be true.
Justice Nathan Scott authored Tuesday’s decision, joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Thomas A. Delaney and Justice Martha K. Gooding, which faults attorney T. Matthew Phillips with filing a petition for a writ of mandate, requesting that the court order Orange Superior Judge Ami Sagel to refer his client’s statement of disqualification to another jurist, based on claims that Sagel “openly and notoriously” “champion[ed] the cause of” the opposing parties.
In support of the petition, Phillips, for whom a Las Vegas address is listed on the State Bar website, filed only one exhibit—the trial court’s order striking the statement of disqualification by his client, Nicole Dodson, who is identified by name in the docket but is referred to in the opinion only as “N.D.”
Saying that “[t]here are no citations supporting…the serious accusations against the trial judge,” which also included allegations that some of the court orders in the underlying case bore a “forged” signature, Scott acknowledged that Phillips asserted that he and Dodson each held an “earnest belief” that Sagel was biased against them. However, he wrote:
“We publish this opinion as a cautionary tale: Lawyers may not make assertions in court that lack factual support, regardless of how much the lawyer or the client ‘earnestly believes’ them. Lawyers may not impugn the integrity of the very system of justice in which they serve without a solid basis in both fact and law. Dissatisfaction with a ruling, however deeply felt, is not itself evidence of judicial misconduct.”
Petition Denied
Div. Three denied the writ petition last October but issued an order to show cause why Phillips should not be sanctioned. In his briefing to the court, Phillips said that if he “had an opportunity for a do-over, he would have included the various emails to [the trial court], and other documents” and that he “believed the legal issue on the disqualification…was simple…, i.e., may the sitting judge pass judgment on a motion to disqualify Her Honor.”
Noting that “Phillips did not provide us with the statement of disqualification,” Scott said that the attorney “accused the trial court of failing to ‘address[] [the statement’s] material allegations’ ” but provided “no evidence of what those allegations were” and instead “unfurled a litany of grievances allegedly suffered at the hands of the court.”
He opined:
“[T]he law is clear that the challenged judge herself may strike a statement of disqualification that discloses no legal grounds for disqualification….We presume the trial court acted appropriately….With essentially no record, any reasonable attorney would conclude the petition totally and completely lacked merit.”
Adding that “[a]ttorneys can…raise…claims [of judicial bias or discrimination], even if they are ultimately unsuccessful—as long as there is a plausible legal basis and evidence in the record to support them,” Scott remarked:
“But what attorneys cannot do is what Phillips did here: make serious accusations of impropriety against the court without a scintilla of supporting evidence. Phillips did not simply argue the trial court was wrong. He accused the trial court of being an active participant in a conspiracy with opposing counsel to intentionally deprive N.D. of her rights.”
Zealous Advocacy
He continued:
“An attorney’s duty to advocate zealously for their client does not trump the equally important duty to ‘exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice.’…An attorney owes a duty to the client and the profession to advise the client that accusations like those presented here must be supported by evidence in the record. If the client continues to press the attorney to raise the claim in court, ‘the high ethical and professional standards of a member of the bar and an officer of the court require the attorney to inform the client that the attorney’s professional responsibility precludes him or her from pursuing such [a claim].’ ”
Concluding that “there is a substantial need to deter this type of conduct,” Scott said that “$25,000 is…within the range of sanctions imposed for frivolous appeals.” He declared:
“Attorney T. Matthew Phillips is ordered to pay the clerk of this court the amount of $25,000 within 30 days of this order….Phillips and the clerk of this court are each ordered to forward a copy of this court’s order to the State Bar within 30 days.”
The case is N.D. v. Superior Court, 2025 S.O.S. 194.
The underlying action was filed in Orange Superior Court on July 1, 2015. Elliott Fisher—identified in Tuesday’s Court of Appeal opinion as real party “E.F.”—sued Dodson for a determination of the parentage of the asserted son of the parties.
Fisher and Dodson are both citizens of the Cherokee Nation. On Aug. 10, 2021, the Superior Court removed the child from Dodson’s custody.
On Sept. 8, 2025, Phillips filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking a determination that “the state-court custody orders” are invalid due to lack of notice to the Cherokee Nation and asking for the return of “custody of the Indian child to his Indian mother.”
The federal action remains pending. On Jan. 7, Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick granted in part and denied in part Fisher’s motion to dismiss.
★★★★
Ernest Belief Doesn’t Justify Allegations—Scott
Below is the preface to Justice Nathan Scott’s opinion in N.D. v. Superior Court.
There are many respected professions in which one may write solely to express someone’s sentiments. An advertiser can trumpet the good qualities of their client’s product without disclosing the negatives. A PR professional can put their client’s crisis in the best light without acknowledging the counterpoints. A speechwriter can craft aspirational promises without conceding the candidate’s limited ability to follow through. In these fields, delivering the client’s message is the name of the game.
The law is not one of those professions.
Lawyers are not mere mouthpieces for clients. Our profession depends on exercising judgment in what we say and how we say it. At times, the only correct professional judgment is to tell the client, “no.”
We publish this opinion as a cautionary tale: Lawyers may not make assertions in court that lack factual support, regardless of how much the lawyer or the client “earnestly believes” them. Lawyers may not impugn the integrity of the very system of justice in which they serve without a solid basis in both fact and law. Dissatisfaction with a ruling, however deeply felt, is not itself evidence of judicial misconduct.
Most lawyers show remarkable skill in helping clients understand our professional obligations yet too many mistake the need for zealous advocacy with a “the customer is always right” policy. We remind them that the legal profession runs on facts, law, and justice. The law cannot tolerate unsupported assertions fueled only by desires, especially baseless accusations against our hardworking trial judges.
We have a duty to “”‘protect the integrity of [the] court.’”“ (In re Mahoney (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 376, 380; accord Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 2.A.) We fulfill that duty by sanctioning attorney T. Matthew Phillips $25,000.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company