Layfield has been released on bail and is presently residing in Delaware. He is facing trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on charges of mail fraud and money laundering.

The prosecution is in connection with Layfield pocketing settlement funds belonging to Josephine Nguyen, who was a client of the erstwhile law firm of Layfield & Barrett. She was to receive 60 percent of a $3.9 million settlement of her personal injury claim, amounting to $2.3 million.

The defendant, apprehended in New Jersey in March and incarcerated until August, had previously fled to Costa Rica.

Trial was initially set for May 15, was continued to Aug. 14, and is now set for Feb. 26. The U.S. Attorney’s Office and Layfield’s attorney, Anthony M. Solis, stipulated to the delay, with Layfield waiving his speedy trial rights, in light of the voluminousness of government documents and Solis’s trial schedule, District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald on July 31 gave his assent.

Solis on Aug. 17 filed an emergency motion for an order modifying the terms of Layfield’s release to permit him to leave his residence to attend classes paving the way for him to obtain a commercial driver’s license so he can seek employment as a truck driver. The motion was granted and he completed a seven-week course. On Oct. 16, Fitzgerald granted a motion permitting him to accept employment with a trucking company. Given that Layfield’s employment necessitates leaving his home, Solis filed a motion on Oct. 20 seeking modification of his bond to delete the home detention/home confinement condition.

Layfield was suspended from law practice by the State Bar of California after he failed to show up for his Jan. 24 disciplinary hearing. The State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel filed disciplinary charges against him on Sept. 20, 2017, alleging that the attorney misappropriated more than $3.4 million from his clients.

Layfield acknowledges moving funds from the attorney-client trust account to his erstwhile firm’s general fund, but insists he thought there was enough money in the coffers to cover the clients’ shares of settlements. He ascribes blame to others, including the State Bar prosecutor.