Angry Judge Fines Lawyers for Divorce Appeal

Corte Madera lawyers Mattaniah Eytan and Eric Schenk learned Thursday that no one throws a hissy fit as well as ticked-off appellate justices.

Ruling in a case involving a simmering spat over a 13-year-old divorce agreement, First District Court of Appeal Justice William Stein hit Eytan and Schenk with hefty monetary sanctions for bringing what he deemed a frivolous appeal.

The San Francisco-based justice held the two lawyers and their client, Terry Kwong, “jointly and severally liable to pay” $15,000 in sanctions to Kwong’s ex-wife, Monica Gong, and $6,000 to the First District’s clerk. Perhaps even worse, he also ordered both attorneys to forward a copy of his opinion to the State Bar, which could subject them to discipline charges.

“Simply put,” Stein thundered in print (.pdf), “we are convinced this appeal has been prosecuted in bad faith.”

Justices Douglas Swager and Sandra Margulies concurred.

The court’s wrath was incurred by Eytan’s and Schenk’s attempt to dispute the date that San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Steven Dylina — who presided over the case — had ordered their client to pay more than $280,000 in child support and nearly $25,000 for his two children’s college expenses.

Eytan and Schenk argued that Dylina’s order was final when the statement of decision was entered on March 1, 2001, rather than on the prior May 23 or June 5, when the judge first calculated the payment. If that was true, Kwong would have owed no support obligations for the nine months between May 23 and March 1.

Justices Stein, Swager and Margulies didn’t bite, instead accusing Eytan and Schenk of trying to deprive Kwong’s children of part of their support and make the court “an unwitting accomplice.”

The justices accused the two lawyers of filing an appeal that “goes far beyond asserting an unmeritorious claim” in that they were “perfectly aware” Judge Dylina didn’t intend to deprive Kwong’s kids of nine months of support.

“Counsel’s sophistry goes beyond proper advocacy,” Stein wrote, “demonstrating a willingness to assist Kwong’s harassment of Gong and to abuse the court’s processes.”

The ruling dismissed Kwong’s appeal outright.

A person who answered the telephone in Schenk’s and Eytan’s office late Thursday said Schenk wasn’t in and Eytan wasn’t available.

—  Mike McKee

Comments

[Ed Gaylan]

I happy to see that Mr. Eytan's unethical strategies have finally caught up with him. Mr. Wong no doubt sought out the Eytan law firm as Mr. Eytan has long standing reputation of using getting his way in court without concerning himself morals and ethics. Mr. Eytan has a long standing infamous reputation from the reports of the lawyers that know him in San Francisco. Most of us thought he was retired only to find he is now involved in family law practicing out of Marin. I am very interested to see what the Barr does with him in the following investigation. I'm sure many of us have a few wild stories to tell about Eytan and his antics.

[5-29-08 Opinion after re-hearing]

A new opinion is issued after re-hearing. Even harsher (see footnote #9 therein.)

[5-29-08 Opinion after re-hearing]

Affirmed, with more (harsher) comments.

[Fred A]

From what I understand Mattaniah Eytan had a stroke and took a leave. Can anyone confirm where he is hiding these days?

[Ed Gayland]

Bad Apple bucks the Bar Mattaniah Eytan

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status
Disciplinary and Related Actions
1/12/2010 Notice of Disc Charges Filed in SBCt 07-O-15019
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/07-O-15019.pdf
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/07-O-15019-1.pdf

STATE BAR COURT
HEARING DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO
In the Matter of:
MATTANIAH EYTAN
No. 68561
Members of the State Bar
Case No. 07-0-15019
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES

COUNT ONE
Case No. 07-0-15019
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-200(A)
[Malicious Prosecution]
2. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-200(A), by
seeking, accepting, or continuing employment when respondent knew or should have known
that the objective of such employment was to take an appeal without probable cause and for the
purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person, as follows…

COUNT TWO
Case No. 07-0-15019
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-200(B)
[Presenting an Unwarranted Claim or Defense]
15. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-200(B), by
continuing employment when respondent knew or should have known that the objective of such
employment was to present a claim or defense in litigation that was not warranted under existing~
law…subjectively and objectively filing a frivolous…

COUNT THREE
Case No. 07-0-15019
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(c)
[Maintaining an Unjust Action]
18. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(c),
by failing to counsel or maintain such action, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him
legal or just… (i.e. hired gun)

[Naomi Haver]

It's amazing to see people impeach the integrity of an attorney they don't even know. Matt Eytan is a brilliant man and talented attorney and a wonderful human being. And I DO know him.