Former Defense Attorney,Todd Macaluso *Merged*

New Posts

  • #461
I sure wish Kathi would do a story on this and let us know just what is going on.

To quote the CA ADP program -- "Recognizing its obligation to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession, the State Bar Court retains jurisdiction over those attorneys in LAP who have pending disciplinary proceedings and makes all appropriate judicial decisions, including any determination regarding the attorney's eligibility to practice law while participating in LAP."

I take this to mean that going into LAP does not negate the disciplinary proceedings. They may very well still be pending, while ADP/LAP deals with the attorney's mental health and/or substance abuse problems. Anyone else read it this way? Kathi, Help!!!

Will Florida actually allow him to practice in the State while he is participating in a program like this in CA?
 
  • #462
Maybe Strickland needs an email of this info sent immediately!
Then they could put Mac on probation....
 
  • #463
  • #464
  • #465
OK...my monthly update...LOL

Now...last time his next hearing was for today...but is the 17th now.
http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/calendar/detailview.aspx?y=8&id=30950

This is a summary of the hearings/status. IMO...looks like he's tryin to dodge the proverbial "bullet"....the inevitable. Lots of reschedule and hold overs. Seems he changed attorneys 2X. Just odd, IMO.
http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx NEED TO PUT IN "06 O 14552" IN THE CASE AREA ON THE BOTTOM


Current attorney....
http://www.ethics-lawyer.com/
 
  • #466
  • #467
TM had his "telephonic conference" on 12/2.....by all appearances and from what I've checked on other ADP cases....he's STILL not in the program....instead of "evaluation for ADP" it WOULD say "participation in ADP". Most cases seem to go sloooooow...

http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx

As usual....put #06 O 14552 in boxes on bottom of page.

You can also go to "Calendar" on the top left of that page.....select a Judge with "Hearing Dept" after their name....it'll pull up their schedule and there's A LOT of lawyers being reviewed for this process at different stages. You can go back and plug their Case # in the page above and see how each case progresses.....maybe I'm just nosey....LOL

This is a description of what the "middle" letter means....TM's is "O"...

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/sbc_generic.jsp?cid=13483&id=23391
 
  • #468
I think there are some high profile Lawyers out there lurking in the shadows just waiting for an opportunity to get involved in this case. Getting rid of TM would probably bring another high profile Lawyer in. IMO only.
 
  • #469
TM's case has been continued until 2/8/10

Macaluso, Todd E

The case entered is associated with lead case number 06-O-14552.

» New Search
Case Name: Macaluso, Todd E Case Number: 06-O-14552
Member #: 133009 Venue: LA
Status: Evaluation for ADP Case Filed: 01/23/2009
Counsel: David C. Carr Deputy Trial Counsel: Charles A. Murray
Assigned Judge: Richard Platel Next Scheduled Event: Alternative Discipline Program Conference 02/08/2010

Date Description Notes
12/03/2009 Document ORD RE R'S EVAL FOR THE ADP
12/02/2009 Alternative Discipline Program Conferenc HELD,CONTINUED
 
  • #470
**Update**

FINALLY, something different...LOL

As always...enter 06 O 14552 into area where it asks for case....
http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx

Basically...it says that TM has been accepted into the ADP....next meeting date is 4/5/2010

BUT.....it also has this in the OUTCOME from his previous meeting...

Transfer Inactive
B + P 6233
Effective 4/26/2010

(B + P appears to be "Business and Professional")

Found a link that somewhat explains....seems he is either:

A) being transfered to "INACTIVE" status

....OR.....

B) the time he's been waiting to be accepted into the ADP program has been taken into account and he is no longer "INACTIVE" as of 4/26/2010.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/sbc/Public-Comment-Forms/08-2004_Proposal-B_B&P-Amendments.pdf

I'm sort of leaning towards the FIRST one...maybe wishful thinking.....
 
  • #471
If he is accepted into this ADP program can he still practice? And why is he permitted to practice in Florida? Is it because there has been no ruling yet? I would think that if he was applying for this program he certainly admitted to some form of unethical behavior. JMO
 
  • #472
LambChop said:
If he is accepted into this ADP program can he still practice? And why is he permitted to practice in Florida? Is it because there has been no ruling yet? I would think that if he was applying for this program he certainly admitted to some form of unethical behavior. JMO
Click to expand...

Every time I think I understand this procedure, I then decide I don't after all. I had no idea it would take this long to get a determination as to acceptance into the program. FWIW, it appears the charges remained pending during all of this time-buying procedure. The program offered the chance for a lesser discipline than if such serious charges were proven at trial in the ordinary course. As I understand it, though, at some point, as a condition of being in this alternative discipline program, there has to be a factual stipulation or admission by him that he did the acts, instead of blaming them on someone else. That would be a far cry from his initial statements of excuse, it seems.

So far, he has remained active and licensed. JS apparently didn't preclude him from being admitted in Florida just because unresolved charges were pending. Now, though, it seems he can be disciplined by CA, even if it is not as severe as what might otherwise have happened. I don't know what the options are in this program. Could you still get suspended? I posted some articles about this way back in the thread and I might go reread now. Here's the link, which does mention being enrolled inactive. ?? http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/c..._Prosecutors.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top Headlines
 
  • #473
MyTinkieGirl said:
**Update**

FINALLY, something different...LOL

As always...enter 06 O 14552 into area where it asks for case....
http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx

Basically...it says that TM has been accepted into the ADP....next meeting date is 4/5/2010

BUT.....it also has this in the OUTCOME from his previous meeting...

Transfer Inactive
B + P 6233
Effective 4/26/2010

(B + P appears to be "Business and Professional")

Found a link that somewhat explains....seems he is either:

A) being transfered to "INACTIVE" status

....OR.....

B) the time he's been waiting to be accepted into the ADP program has been taken into account and he is no longer "INACTIVE" as of 4/26/2010.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/sbc/Public-Comment-Forms/08-2004_Proposal-B_B&P-Amendments.pdf

I'm sort of leaning towards the FIRST one...maybe wishful thinking.....
Click to expand...


If you look at his personal listing, by looking up his name, it says he is currently active. I think that has remained true throughout this process. Look down the page under the disciplinary section. Something appears to be effective in April. Maybe that is when discipline, if any, commences? The references are very cryptic, but if his status as an active member changes, it should show up here.
 
  • #474
OH one of my favorite subjects! I hope to god the belligerent 'counsel' gets disbarred.
 
  • #475
I found this re: B & P 6233

http://law.onecle.com/california/business/6233.html

[/B] California Business And Professions Code Section 6233

An attorney entering the diversion and assistance program
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 6232 may be enrolled as an
inactive member of the State Bar and not be entitled to practice law,
or may be required to agree to various practice restrictions,
including, where appropriate, restrictions on scope of practice and
monetary accounting procedures.
 
  • #476
amethyst221 said:
If you look at his personal listing, by looking up his name, it says he is currently active. I think that has remained true throughout this process. Look down the page under the disciplinary section. Something appears to be effective in April. Maybe that is when discipline, if any, commences? The references are very cryptic, but if his status as an active member changes, it should show up here.
Click to expand...

Yep...you're exactly correct...thru these past months of meetings to see IF he would be accepted into the ADP program, everything has remained the same....it said "active" and "EVALUATION for ADP".....at the past hearing, Feb 8th, his "status" changed to "participation in ADP"....at the "Dockets" page I kept referencing...

http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx


BUT....I hadn't checked his "Attorney Search" page....AND....yes, again, "I seeeee said the blind man"......you are correct, AGAIN!! That page DEFINITELY says it all.....he'll be "inactive" as of April 26th....I hadn't checked there.

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=133009

And, during these past months meetings to discuss his eligibility for the program, he was going to represent the football player in the Tila Tequila fiasco....so, he was considered "active"....and working...

http://pulse2.com/category/todd-macaluso/

I wonder if it's time for "some reporter" to do a story about the defense's choice of a lawyer who came on board and said we were gonna "fall off our couch" when we heard the "whole story"....and they have actual PROOF KC didn't murder Caylee....
 
  • #477
Where does Baez find these people anyway?

Is there a directory of unethical and on the edge of disbarrment lawyers somewhere?

Maybe the directory is called "Will Work For Free - Lawyers with Tarnished Reputations".

Actually there might also be the same directory for Media Spokespersons too.

Don't you have to be in a club or something to have contacts for as many greasy people as Baez seems to have? The "I'm a Sleezball, Too Club" or "Bad Lawyers Anonymous".
 
  • #478
100%Agave said:
Where does Baez find these people anyway?

Is there a directory of unethical and on the edge of disbarrment lawyers somewhere?

Maybe the directory is called "Will Work For Free - Lawyers with Tarnished Reputations".

Actually there might also be the same directory for Media Spokespersons too.

Don't you have to be in a club or something to have contacts for as many greasy people as Baez seems to have? The "I'm a Sleezball, Too Club" or "Bad Lawyers Anonymous".
Click to expand...


LOL: I think the ad in the paper read: "If your reputation is in the dumpters and you have no place to go but up, apply here." (Disclaimer: we can't, of course, guarantee that association with this case will cause your reputation to go from the top of the dumpster to the bottom). JMO
 
  • #479
notthatsmart said:
I think there are some high profile Lawyers out there lurking in the shadows just waiting for an opportunity to get involved in this case. Getting rid of TM would probably bring another high profile Lawyer in. IMO only.
Click to expand...

What does "high profile" mean, exactly? Notorious, excellent, publicity-seeking, what? I agree there most likely will be others falling all over themselves to get involved in this case if there is an opening. As far as "getting rid of" Mr. TM, the bar of CA will decide that, I guess. Whether he remains eligible to actively practice law in CA, and thus in FLA, is not up for our vote. He has serious claims filed against him that have to resolved one way or another.
 
  • #480
100%Agave said:
Where does Baez find these people anyway?

Is there a directory of unethical and on the edge of disbarrment lawyers somewhere?

Maybe the directory is called "Will Work For Free - Lawyers with Tarnished Reputations".

Actually there might also be the same directory for Media Spokespersons too.

Don't you have to be in a club or something to have contacts for as many greasy people as Baez seems to have? The "I'm a Sleezball, Too Club" or "Bad Lawyers Anonymous".
Click to expand...

That's an easy answer! These are people who will accept $$$ to agree with him! (Baez that is)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mombomb
  • Locked
2011.06.20 - Witnesses not called to stand -copy of court transcription
Replies
0
Views
2K
mombomb
mombomb

Staff online

Members online

... and 105 more.
Total: 2,259 (members: 106, guests: 2,153)

Online statistics

Members online
106
Guests online
2,153
Total visitors
2,259
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,828
Messages
18,632,378
Members
243,307
Latest member
mdeleeon
Back
Top