Sofia Haghighat v Hamid Haghighat, Orange County Superior Court Case Number 05D001069.


Michael Leight is listed by the appellate court as the attorney for the party making the appeal.




Leight is also listed by the Orange County Superior Court as being involved in the case since 2013.






From the court of appeals ruling it is Lawzilla's understanding the following happened:

Leight's client was involved in a divorce from his wife, and he had been found to have lied, fabricated a document and concealed marital assets.




The trial court issued sanctions awarding his wife the value of the assets that had been hidden.




Attorney Leight then filed an appeal for his client.




The court of appeals said Leight in his briefing did not cite any applicable authority to support his argument.




The justices said there is a rule the party on appeal must discuss all evidence, good and bad, to explain why they should prevail. In his briefing Michael Leight violated this rule.

The justices also said there is a rule that factual claims must be supported by citations to the record. In his briefing the attorney also violated this rule.




The court of appeals concluded that the appeal was "completely without merit".

It was again noted the briefing failed to support factual claims with citations to the record, and failed to support the argument with appropriate legal cases.

The judges said attorney Michael Leight "pursued this frivolous appeal in bad faith" for his client.

They noted the appellant "engaged in bad faith tactics in both the initial marital dissolution trial and in the trial that is the subject of this appeal. The court found he engaged in deliberate deception in both cases."




In conclusion the justices said sanctions were appropriate.

They sent the case back to the trial court to determine what sanctions to award against both Hamid and attorney Michael Leight.

Attorney Mike Leight is facing potentially significant sanctions. The court of appeal told the trial judge sanctions should be evaluated against Michael Leight personally.

The justices said the appeal was frivolous, completely without merit, and violated various rules. They further noted "deliberate deception" occurred at the trial court, but without delineating if there was attorney misconduct involved.

California Business and Professions Code section 6068 imposes numerous duties on attorneys:

(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.

(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.

(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just...

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest.

(o) To report to the State Bar, in writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any of the following:

(3) The imposition of judicial sanctions against the attorney, except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

A violation of the duties of an attorney "constitute causes for disbarment or suspension." (Business and Professions Code section 6103)

Wowsa. We do not recall a court of appeals dealing with an attorney so harshly and saying a trial judge should evaluate sanctions against him. Of course, it is possible no sanctions against Leight will be imposed.

It is noteworthy the justices said there was "deliberate deception" and "bad faith" in the trial leading up to the appeal. In the trial leading to the appeal attorney Leight represented Hamid.


We believe a violation of section 6068 can result in discipline by the State Bar, including a potential suspension from the practice of law or disbarment.

Here, it is possible Michael Leight is sanctioned $1000 or more - an amount requiring reporting to the State Bar. He may not be sanctioned, but based on the appellate opinion we think the likelihood is good there will be attorney sanctions.

The justices have already apparently ruled the appeal was not legal or just. They said the appeal was frivolous, without merit, and in bad faith.

The justices also said the appeal was intended to cause delay and did not seek a victory. In our opinion that seems like a corrupt motive. It wastes the judicial resources paid for by the public and puts an unnecessary burden on the legal system.

We believe these words were chosen by the justices to show moral turpitude, which may be a basis for severe attorney disclipline.

Based on what the court of appeal said, we do not recommend attorney Michael Leight, Esq.'s services. The justices indicated his client's appeal was frivolous and in bad faith. They directed the evaluation of potential sanctions against him. He may not be practicing law much longer.

was admitted to the California Bar in 1976. Bar Number 71637.

6700 Pacific Coast Highway #237
Long Beach, California 90803

Law School: Western State

Sanctions are Recoverable as a Judgment - Analysis of the little known fact that sanctions awarded in a lawsuit can be enforced as their own separate judgment. Surprise someone by putting a lien on their bank account, home, wages, etc.