Former Defense Attorney,Todd Macaluso *Merged*

[TURBOTHINK]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2646278&postcount=48

I have not found any cases where that has happened. You listed the Mary Winkler case in Florida. That case was not in Florida but Tennessee.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

LOL -- but do you have proof that you didn't download that from any place other than your brain?

And to the question where do these people come from? I think it's slithering from underneath some of the stones that have been left unturned.

I don't think we have left too many of them unturned that we have found. LOL!

 

[PattyCake]

Isn't this called.................. KC Karma?

Remember, I coined the word. lol

 

[mitzi]

Yeah, really!
It's a poorly thought out risk, at best. So much for the high-profile grandeur deemed to be:takeabow:sooooo intimidating!


Macaluso has filed another motion to follow up the original. :deal: I thought I'd put it in the news thread, but realized it should also go in here, too, for clarity.

He is my legal analysis:

WHAT THE BLANKETTY BLANK WAS THIS GUY THINKING? :shakehead:

Now he's gonna be "the lawyer who lied on the motion." Whether he is responsible for the alleged acts or not, it's not the most prudent way to treat these motions. It's viewed as a showing of disrespect for the "host" state. Judges have good memories. :gavel:

Link For Macaluso's Verified Amended Motion To Appear Pro Hac Vice:

:wolf:http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Amended%20Verified%20Motion%20for%20Admission%20to%20Appear%20Pro%20Hac%20Vice.pdf:wolf:​

Humble-Opinion:wolf:

Macaluso left his business in the hands of his underlings for 15 months? Are you kidding me? How many of us could take off work for 15 months to console our family? Is this guy related to CA who hasn't returned to work for 8 months? Argggg!

 

[Theonly1]

No suit was ever filed by the Bechlers against Kylie or Scott's estate. There was a settlement reached based on the fact that the Bechlers might be beneficiaries of Scott's estate (perhaps there was a will). One of the issues in the Bechlers' suit against Macaluso is that he charged them 40% of the recovery for his fees, which he was entitled to do if he had to file suit, although no suit was ever filed, so by the terms of the contract he was only entitled to 33.3%.

And then he bounced his trust account check to them. In light of what's going on with the CA bar, that's the part that gets me.

This is NOT GOOD!

 

[amethyst221]

This is the kind of stuff that gives you an awful feeling. I really wonder if the Florida court will allow him to be admitted under these circumstances? I can't see that at this stage it would be too prejudicial to Casey to exclude him. He doesn't have any special expertise that can't be duplicated. Is it correct that he even came into the picture from across the country because he has some association with the Badens? Did he or they reveal this bar matter to JB before he sponsored him for admission PHV?

As to why he would attach himself to such a notorious case at this time -- I'd guess desperation. The hope that lots of publicity will generate business and income?

I think it might be very difficult to show clerical error on so many occasions as a defense to mishandling client funds. That is what normally saves people from serious discipline. I don't think it is mitigating that no clients reported this to the bar. The automatic bank reporting rules were set up for a reason. Clients, especially those who aren't particularly sophisticated, often have no idea about what goes on in their cases, other than what they hear from their lawyer, on whom they totally rely. They might not know a case was settled, for how much, how strict the rules are for handling their funds, etc.

 

[Searchfortruth]

He addresses the "timely" payment of the overdraft on the check written, but, IMO, doesn't address the real issue...WHY was he writing checks, in the first place, on a client's account ?

 

[whiteangora]

Okay, now I've looked at all the docs being discussed, the county assessor records, the amended motion for pro hac vice, etc. and all I can say is that I am flabbergasted. IMO, clearly he knew what he was doing with the first motion phv. In the amended motion he writes something to the effect of "It has come to the attention of the undersigned .." that there is a disciplinary proceeding. Then he attaches his response to those charges that were filed one month before. So how did it just come to his attention--which he definitely tried to imply in the amended motion? Then he doesn't mention the charges re paying his personal expenses with client funds. (As a prior poster pointed out) That made me look back at the charges and his response. He generally denied those charges on information and belief. ie he didn't specifically explain them as he did the bounced check charges. Why not? Then in his mitigating circumstances section of his response he claims that if he committed misconduct any actions he took were an aberration. So now I'm sitting here thinking he very well may have knowingly paid his personal expenses with client funds. The thought of it is making me ill. He's supposed to be one of the good guys fighting for truth, justice, the American Way and all that jazz. (Yeah I know you think he's scum because he's representing KC...but I'll tell you, he is an exceptional lawyer who has worked extremely hard helping people, helping victims of corporate greed, etc.)

bold,me

It's beginning to look like he is helping himself more than anyone else. When do we find out if he will be approved to participate in Casey's trial?

 

[sumbunny]

J. Baez --- Delusional (and under investigation)
L. K. Baden --- Disgraceful (and rude) Needs someone to buy her a hairbrush
T. Macaluso --- Dishonest (and under investigation)
H. Lee --- Discredited (kicked off Spector trial)

How is this a "Dream" Team?

Scheme team or Nightmare, maybe.

Casey's scheme team....I love it!

It has a little je ne sais quois! It's a keeper! ~snorts~

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I'm actually relieved that it reads the same way to you as it did to me. I was stunned at what I found when I started researching this. If you have access to PACER it is worthwhile to spend the money to look at the amended complaint in Bechler and Macaluso's counterclaim because he admits to bouncing an ADDITIONAL $299K check that isn't even included in this set of charges (and it still bounced even though he had just put over $800K into his trust account--horrifying). I can see very easily how this might have happened, but...why would he step into the spotlight in this case now? Did he think people wouldn't figure this out?

Thanks HB, if it weren't for your original post I wouldn't have gone back and looked more carefully at everything. I do have PACER but think I will save my $ and take your word for it. I am just at a loss here. To boot, I know that he wasn't away from the office for 15 months (if he intended to imply that he wasn't working during that time) because I am aware of some matters that he argued in court during that time period as well as other work he accomplished during that time period. I am also dumbfounded that his Legal Assistant is also listed as his bookkeeper--doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps he stepped into the spotlight to gain the nationwide exposure and drum up business? Why else?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

He addresses the "timely" payment of the overdraft on the check written, but, IMO, doesn't address the real issue...WHY was he writing checks, in the first place, on a client's account ?

He wasn't writing checks on a client's account--the checks were written on his Attorney-Client Trust Account--and only the attorney is permitted to write checks on that account. A CTA is the account an attorney is required to maintain for the purpose of depositing all funds received on behalf of clients or by clients for use on their cases.

 

[Muzikman]

Wow, I wish there were a way to let Judge Strickland know of all of you WS'rs sleuthing... Just to make sure he's fully informed of what's gone on with this guy.

I don't like what looks like him holding back info that the judge should be aware of, just to make himself look better. I sure hope the press is reading this thread and runs with it!

 

[MiraclesHappen]

He addresses the "timely" payment of the overdraft on the check written, but, IMO, doesn't address the real issue...WHY was he writing checks, in the first place, on a client's account ?

An explanation for the deception which triggered the need for the amended motion would be appreciated too.
Its amazing how being exposed :dj::camera::deal:ut em up: :footinmouth:by a news station worked for this guy like an overdose of ginkgo biloba.
Big issue as well, though, HUGE.

Humble-Opinion:wolf2:

 

[trixi491]

What bothers me is he could have just said he left it in the hands of his staff b/c he was dealing with family issues. Instead he says "my only brother was dying of cancer and I had to care for my mom"--totally playing the pity card IMO.

 

[Searchfortruth]

He wasn't writing checks on a client's account--the checks were written on his Attorney-Client Trust Account--and only the attorney is permitted to write checks on that account. A CTA is the account an attorney is required to maintain for the purpose of depositing all funds received on behalf of clients or by clients for use on their cases.

I guess I'm not understanding this...

 

[amethyst221]

In the course of reading about all this stuff, I learned an interesting little piece of information. TM was involved in the litigation (I think a class action) against the maker of an ephedra containing supplement, for making false claims about the product. This is the product the Orioles player (Bechler) was taking at the time of his death. In the wrongful death action by the surviving spouse, the manufacturer tried to shift blame to the Orioles, claiming it was not the fault of his product. The expert for the supplement company, who blamed Bechler's health and weight -- Dr. Baden. Small world.

 

[RR0004]

In the course of reading about all this stuff, I learned an interesting little piece of information. TM was involved in the litigation (I think a class action) against the maker of an ephedra containing supplement, for making false claims about the product. This is the product the Orioles player (Bechler) was taking at the time of his death. In the wrongful death action by the surviving spouse, the manufacturer tried to shift blame to the Orioles, claiming it was not the fault of his product. The expert for the supplement company, who blamed Bechler's health and weight -- Dr. Baden. Small world.

I think I just read about this on another thread...he was the one who testified for the drug company.

 

[SuziQ]

In the course of reading about all this stuff, I learned an interesting little piece of information. TM was involved in the litigation (I think a class action) against the maker of an ephedra containing supplement, for making false claims about the product. This is the product the Orioles player (Bechler) was taking at the time of his death. In the wrongful death action by the surviving spouse, the manufacturer tried to shift blame to the Orioles, claiming it was not the fault of his product. The expert for the supplement company, who blamed Bechler's health and weight -- Dr. Baden. Small world.

And Baden was the only one who said Ephedra didn't kill Scott! I guess his expert opinion depends on who's paying him, and in the case of the Spector trial...who's gonna make him sleep on the couch.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

I guess I'm not understanding this...

Lawyer has client TRUST account set up as required by Bar.

Accident settlement check arrives at law office, made out to clients.

Clients come in & sign the check which is then deposited into trust account.

Lawyer writes checks out of the account to pay clients after writing check to self to cover fees & costs of pursuing the claim.

This is a sacred account and a lawyer cannot use it for other purposes or personal purposes, EVER.

Every penny is strictly accounted for and traceable. There is no payment of a lawyer's personal expenses allowed. No paying for golf, planes, or tennis, for instance

The lawyer always gives an accounting for where the money went, and how the checks were distributed to the client who originally signed the check. The clients anticipate costs will be deducted from their payout, as that has been discussed & agreed to in a prior fee agreement. Thus the saying, "The lawyer gets paid "off the top."

They do not anticipate the lawyer will be writing checks out of the account to pay for anything relative to the lawyer's personal life. Why should they.

Even if the lawyer had deposited the money into the trust account, from his own money, and then written a check to pay for a tennis lesson from his own money he just deposited , that is still ethically not allowable, as he is thereby "commingling personal money with the Client's trust account and it is forbidden, period..


That's just a very simple overview of what's involved and what has come into question for this new member of the defense's team.

Humble-Opinion:wolf2:



Lastly, here is a link for His home state's rule about this account. Just about the same everywhere.



http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Current_Rules.gif&sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/Rules/Rules%20of%20Professional%20Conduct&sFileType=HTML&sCatHtmlPath=html/RPC_Current-Rules-4-100.html

 

[Searchfortruth]

Lawyer has client TRUST account set up as required by Bar.

Accident settlement check arrives at law office, made out to clients.

Clients come in & sign the check which is then deposited into trust account.

Lawyer writes checks out of the account to pay clients after writing check to self to cover fees & costs of pursuing the claim.

This is a sacred account and a lawyer cannot use it for other purposes or personal purposes, EVER.

Every penny is strictly accounted for and traceable. There is no payment of a lawyer's personal expenses allowed. No paying for golf, planes, or tennis, for instance

The lawyer always gives an accounting for where the money went, and how the checks were distributed to the client who originally signed the check. The clients anticipate costs will be deducted from their payout, as that has been discussed & agreed to in a prior fee agreement. Thus the saying, "The lawyer gets paid "off the top."

They do not anticipate the lawyer will be writing checks out of the account to pay for anything relative to the lawyer's personal life. Why should they.

Even if the lawyer had deposited the money into the trust account, from his own money, and then written a check to pay for a tennis lesson from his own money he just deposited , that is still ethically not allowable, as he is thereby "commingling personal money with the Client's trust account and it is forbidden, period..


That's just a very simple overview of what's involved and what has come into question for this new member of the defense's team.

Humble-Opinion:wolf2:



Lastly, here is a link for His home state's rule about this account. Just about the same everywhere.



http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Current_Rules.gif&sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/Rules/Rules%20of%20Professional%20Conduct&sFileType=HTML&sCatHtmlPath=html/RPC_Current-Rules-4-100.html

Thank you very much for this detailed explanation !!! I think I got it, lawyers do write checks on this account but not for personal expenses. I wonder what the bar will do about this, what they normally do in this circumstance.