Will Casey's New Lawyer Stay?

Glaring Discrepencies
There are glaring discrepencies in Macaluso’s amendment and his statement to the Florida Bar. Notably, the Initiation Document from the California Bar is not included, only his response to it filed February 13, 2009. I am told this more than meets the legal burden of “bringing it to one’s attention.”
To quote a well respected legal-eagle friend of mine, forgetting you have pending Bar charges:
..”It’s the equivalent of forgetting your severed leg is near the Alien ship parked in the foyer..”
Mr. Macaluso’s statement to Judge Strickland identifying the pending discipliary action is weaker than Casey’s Nanny story. Let’s Review:
Mac states that the issue rises from 2 checks that had an accounting error: a) Untrue. There are 3 seperate checks, 3 seperate checks from 3 seperate cases in 3 seperate Attorney Client Trust Accounts, on three seperate dates. b) That responsibility is nondelgable and sacrisant as the Trust Attorney no one else but him can have access to those accounts.
He states that the Clients were immediately repaid and that they did not file complaints with the bar. a) Yes but how, from what accounts? Co-mingling trust accounts is in violation of several Federal laws. How much were they paid? Did they get a bump for the trouble?
He gives the case number as 06–0–14552. That is correct, but he neglects to identify that case number is due to a consolidation of 3 seperate case numbers of actions brought before the bar, yielding multiple counts.
He OMITS ENTIRELY that one of the charges is that he spent funds out of a Client trust account for personal expenses. Specifically, $50K for the plane you see him pictured in above. The check for the plane, however, did not bounce.
The member in good standing Bar Certification dated May 7, 2008 he refers to as “forthwith” preceeds these charges. Apparently it is inappropriate to ask for an updated one when you are claiming temporary amnesia.
He states that as a result of his brothers death, he was “away” from the office for 15 months. Not only is that in direct conflict with his response to the California bar, but it is a lie. His own site discussed his wins in court and settlements during this timeframe. I have a personal friend that has been in court with him during this time frame. A simple check of court docket appearances by Mr. Macaluso belie that entirely.
There’s More
On May 27, 2008, a civil suit was filed against Macaluso’s Law Firm on behalf of Ernest and Mike and Patricia Bechler, parents and brother of Orioles pitcher Scott Bechler in Oregon District Court for 5.1 Million Dollars.
Macaluso along with other lawyers, brought a class action suit against Cytodyne Technologies, a New Jersey supplement manufacturer and won an $18 Million dollar settlement on behalf of Kylie Bechler, Bechler’s widow.
Interestingly, the expert hired by the defendants in that case is the husband of fellow defense counsel Linda Kenney Baden, Dr. Michael Baden.
There was a discovery extension in that case extended until January 23, 2009; the same day that the California Bar filed notice of disciplinary charges against Macaluso. Within that pending suit, there is again an allegation of a bounced check from the Clients trust fund for a whopping $299,520.78 on January 23, 2007. This check is not included in the current bar complaint against him, perhaps due to some sort of fee dispute. In essence, the Bechler’s are alleging that Macaluso et al negotiated their settlement and requested that the check for same included his name as well so he could take his “cut” off the top, which they objected to. The check was for $824,000. Mac witheld $525,000 for himself and sent a check to Bechler’s ,which bounced to boot, when presented.
It does state that on February 22, 2007 upon notification from the parties that the check could not be processed, Defendant Macaluso wired the funds to the parties:
“In response to paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint, defendants admit that on or about February 12, 2007, a check in the amount of $299,520.78 was issued and mailed to plaintiffs. Defendants are without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny what actions plaintiffs took in response and, therefore, deny allegations relating to the same. Defendants state that shortly after defendants learned the check was not processed, they arranged to have that money wired to plaintiffs on February 22, 2007.”