How a California Family Law Attorney Stole Nearly $5 Million from Clients, Fabricated Bank Records, and Ultimately Lost Her License in Two States
INTRODUCTION
In the world of legal ethics, few violations are as fundamental — or as damning — as the misappropriation of client funds. Attorney trust accounts exist as a sacred boundary: money held in trust belongs to the client, not the lawyer. When that boundary is crossed, the consequences are severe. The case of Evie P. Jeang, a family law attorney from Alhambra, California, stands as a stark illustration of what happens when that line is not merely crossed but obliterated — and then aggressively concealed for years.
Jeang is set to be disbarred after misappropriating nearly $5 million and falsifying bank records. KTLA 5 News Her case is a cautionary tale spanning nearly a decade of misconduct, criminal charges, civil judgments, and ultimately, the permanent revocation of her law license in both California and New York.
BACKGROUND: A FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY AND A COURT ORDER
Jeang was admitted to practice in 2002 Metropolitan News-Enterprise, building a career in family law. By most external appearances, she was a seasoned practitioner with over a decade of experience. She operated under the banner of Ideal Legal Group in Alhambra and handled divorce and dissolution proceedings in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
The chain of events that would end her career began in 2015. Jeang represented Brian Daly in a divorce action in the Los Angeles Superior Court. On August 6, 2015, then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patrick A. Cathcart ordered that proceeds from the sale of the parties’ Ranch Palos Verdes home be placed, at the close of escrow, in Jeang’s attorney-client trust account. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
This was a routine court order designed to protect both parties during contested divorce proceedings. What followed was anything but routine.
THE MISCONDUCT: MISAPPROPRIATION AND CONCEALMENT
Between September 28, 2015 and May 8, 2017, Jeang knowingly and intentionally misappropriated $4,796,125.73 in trust funds she was required to maintain on behalf of Catherine Zhang and Brian Daly pursuant to the August 6, 2015 court order in the dissolution proceeding. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
The State Bar of California revealed the full scope of how the money was spent and hidden. This included cash withdrawals of over $500,000 and more than $240,000 in credit card payments. Yahoo! But the theft alone was not the full extent of the misconduct.
For nearly five years, Jeang misled her client, the opposing party, and the court regarding the status of the money, attempting to conceal the misappropriation by producing fabricated bank documents to opposing counsel and to the court, purporting to show that she had maintained the funds in her account as required, when she had already misappropriated nearly all the funds. Yahoo!
The deception unraveled in early 2022. After a March 2022 court order requesting a new attorney for Jeang’s client, Jeang’s bank sent just under $2 million from her trust account to the new attorney, and a week after receiving the funds, the new attorney filed a complaint with the State Bar upon learning of Jeang’s false claims that there was $3.9 million in the trust account. Yahoo!
THE STATE BAR PROCEEDINGS
The State Bar of California moved swiftly once the complaint was filed. The State Bar of California placed Jeang on inactive status after she pleaded no contest to disciplinary charges related to the case. The Bar considered the plea an admission of culpability under the stipulation approved by the court in 2022. Officials said she admitted to falsifying bank records and making false statements to the court to hide her misconduct. CBS News
On June 18, 2024, a judge approved the stipulation and formally recommended disbarment. The parties stipulated to the following aggravation: multiple acts of wrongdoing, significant harm to the client and the administration of justice, and failure to make restitution. They also stipulated to the following mitigation: absence of prior discipline (given minimal weight due to, inter alia, the significant sum misappropriated, multiple acts of dishonesty, and violation of court orders), community service, and, by entering into the stipulation and pleading nolo contendere, respondent was entitled to limited mitigation for her cooperation and saving the State Bar significant time and resources. Justia
Respondent agreed to pay $2,496,296.22 in restitution, plus interest. Justia
The State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel did not mince words in its assessment of the harm caused. “Jeang’s conduct caused significant harm not only to the parties, including her client, whose funds she misappropriated, but also to the court, which, along with the parties, had to expend significant resources to untangle the fraud perpetrated by Jeang through her disregard of court orders and her misrepresentations to the parties and the court,” said Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona. CBS News
The State Bar Court forwarded the recommendation of disbarment to the California Supreme Court on July 31, 2024. Metropolitan News-Enterprise The California Supreme Court formally disbarred Jeang on October 7, 2024.
CRIMINAL CHARGES
Simultaneous with the disciplinary proceedings, the criminal justice system also moved into action. Jeang, 47, was charged with four felony counts, including grand theft, grand theft by embezzlement, preparing false documentary evidence, and perjury by declaration. The charges also include a special sentencing enhancement of aggravated white-collar crime. CBS News
A Los Angeles divorce attorney faces up to eight years in prison. CBS News The criminal proceedings marked a significant escalation — not only had Jeang lost her license, but she now faced potential imprisonment.
THE CIVIL JUDGMENT
Beyond criminal prosecution and professional discipline, the victims also pursued civil remedies. In January 2025, Division Seven of the Court of Appeal upheld an award of $4.2 million — consisting of $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $1.7 million in prejudgment interest — to the former couple who accused Jeang of misappropriating funds from a client trust account containing approximately $4.8 million in home sale proceeds, which was to be held pending resolution of the divorce proceedings. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
The family court determined that the breach occurred on May 8, 2017 — the day Jeang closed her client trust account at Bank of America and withdrew $2,520,372.23 — and awarded prejudgment interest from that date to the trial date. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
The appellate court was unsparing in its review of the evidence. The trial court found overwhelming evidence that Jeang committed fraud and malfeasance. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
RECIPROCAL DISBARMENT IN NEW YORK
The reach of Jeang’s professional consequences extended beyond California. Because she was also admitted to the New York Bar, California’s disbarment triggered reciprocal disciplinary proceedings there as well.
By order entered October 7, 2024, the Supreme Court of California disbarred respondent for a pattern of misconduct that included willful misappropriation of escrow funds, falsifying bank records, and submitting falsified evidence and making false statements. Justia
On March 5, 2026, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, issued its ruling. The motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department for reciprocal discipline was granted, and respondent Evie P. Jeang was disbarred and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately. Justia
ETHICAL ANALYSIS: WHY THIS CASE MATTERS
The Jeang case raises several critical lessons for the legal profession:
1. The Sanctity of Client Trust Accounts Client trust accounts are not a convenience — they are a cornerstone of the attorney-client relationship. When a court orders funds to be held in trust, that order is not a suggestion. As the State Bar noted, every attorney has a duty to maintain client funds and ensure their prompt disbursement to their proper recipients. When an attorney breaches that duty, and compounds that breach by misguided attempts to conceal it through fabrications and false statements, disbarment is clearly warranted. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
2. The Aggravating Weight of Concealment What distinguishes this case from a simple act of misappropriation is the years-long cover-up. Jeang did not stumble into an ethical lapse; she actively fabricated documents and lied to the court, her clients, and opposing counsel for nearly five years. Although Jeang had 13 years of discipline-free practice prior to the start of the misconduct, the mitigating weight of it is diminished where the misconduct is intentional and consists of multiple misrepresentations. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
3. The Cascading Consequences of Misconduct This case demonstrates the full spectrum of consequences that can flow from serious ethical violations: involuntary inactive status, disbarment in multiple jurisdictions, criminal felony charges with the prospect of incarceration, and multi-million dollar civil liability. Jeang’s egregious misconduct over the course of years demonstrates a profound disregard for professional responsibilities and adherence to her fiduciary duties. Metropolitan News-Enterprise
4. The Limits of Mitigation Jeang’s legal team pointed to her otherwise clean record and her community service as mitigating factors. The State Bar and courts gave these limited weight. A clean prior record, while relevant, cannot neutralize years of intentional fraud, especially when full restitution has not been made. The parties are still owed nearly $2.5 million. KTLA 5 News
CONCLUSION
The disbarment of Evie P. Jeang is not simply a story about one attorney’s downfall. It is a reminder of the bedrock principles that underpin legal practice: fidelity to clients, honesty with tribunals, and respect for the rule of law. When those principles are abandoned — and then buried under years of fabrication — the profession has no choice but to respond with its most severe sanction.
For victims Catherine Zhang and Brian Daly, no disciplinary ruling fully erases the years of financial harm and legal uncertainty they endured. For the profession, the case serves as an urgent reminder that client funds are never the attorney’s money — not even temporarily, not even for a moment.
