Casey/Caylee Anthony Case: New Attorney Macaluso Participation Doubtful

Orlando, Fl– Recently reported exclusively on, new Attorney for the tot mom’s defense team, Todd Macaluso, who was introduced to Judge Stan Strickland prior to filing his pro hac vice before the court during a motion hearing on March 3, 2009, may be out.

Is Macaluso the Madoff of law?

He blazed the interview circuit in Orlando declaring Casey Anthony’s innocence and went so far as to say she should not be in jail awaiting trail and the defense was looking into seeking another bond hearing. 

Mr. Macaluso is currently undergoing disciplinary charges brought forth by the California Bar. The 10 page initiating document outlining the charges was filed January 23, 2009.



Through support of the local attorney of record, Jose Baez, Todd Macaluso filed his pro hac vice on March 12, 2009 prior to the motion hearing of his anticipated new client Casey Anthony. It was not until confronted about the California Bar Disciplinary Charges while leaving that proceeding did he apparently recover from  his memory lag and filed an amended petition to appear in the case after the court had already closed, 5:47PM by fax ,to be precise, therefore not time stamped until the 13th. 

The Florida Rules of Administration require the form submission for the filing CLEARLY asks the petitioner if there are any pending disciplinary actions against him. Macaluso and by way of sponsorship, Jose Baez, answered no to that question on the form filed earlier in the day.

In his amended “version” Mac claims “It has come to his attention” that there are pending disciplinary charges against him by the California Bar.


Mr. Macaluso was originally scheduled for a status hearing, the first since responding to the disciplinary charges on March 3, 2009. The VERY DAY Jose Baez introduced him to Judge Strickland in open court and announced he would be filing his pro hac vice. Did this pre eminent litigator actually request a continuance in the discipline matter to attend Casey’s hearing, announce his participation, run the press junket out of an airplane hangar among other places and expect nobody would check him out? Macplane That would apparently include Jose Baez who has an obligation to do so under the Florida Bar.

Additionally in the amendment, Mac specifically states that he was retained personally by Casey Anthony. If that’s true Baez has an even bigger problem than this latest black eye. Baez declared in open court on Wednesday that there are only two retainer agreements that exist with any counsel and Casey Anthony : his and Linda Kenney Badens. No mention of Mac. Somebody is making mistatements under oath as a sworn officer of the court, they can’t both be true.


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 Steve 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.”

Mr. Macaluso is scheduled to appear at a Alternative Discipline Program  (ADP) Conference on April 8, 2009, following a status hearing that occurred on March 24, 2009 where through his attorney, Mac motioned for referral to the ADP. As of yesterday, March 26th, Todd Macaluso and the California Bar have a trial date and order pending persuant to the March 24th status conference on these charges.




Related Posts:


  1. IVOIRE says:

    Loading from page: to results


  2. Kleat says:

    Ivorie, hey it only took Vinny 6 years to pass the bar!!! Well, Vinny was spending that time ‘studying’ while Jose, in this interview that you posted, took 8 years, but he pointed out that he had better things to do than become a practicing lawyer during that time.

    Thanks, had not seen that interview. (that looks just like the Malcuso interview room, with velvet jacket too!?)

  3. mamacrazy30 says:

    blink, a question..
    excuse me for sounding dis-jointed but my question is complicated. was/is macaluso presented with all the defence evidence, and IF he doesn’t stay on the defense team (for whatever reason) and will eventually be disbarred, is client privilege protected after the fact? Can he now take what he knows and sell it for team bozo without being directly involved because he will not be on the case? i’m just wondering…

    Apparently, he had a retainer agreement prior to taking that “box of data” and other. As a practicing attorney, in the event he did not consult with Casey or advise her in Fla, privlege would stand regardless. If he witheld that information (bar complaint) to GET a retainer agreement and failed to disclose it and get a waiver, that could be a very big problem if she were to come after him.. It is unlikely he would be able to say anything publicly regardless of what happens in Cali.. Blink

  4. Kleat says:

    Macaluso, even if he withheld the information voluntarily, the info is right on the lawyer’s page on the California Bar Association’s website, with the documents as filed and responded attached as pdf files. So, if Casey were to come after him, say as a source of funds for alternate council to replace him with someone of similar qualifications, Casey would be expected to have checked him out before signing a retainer, and because she can not do that without her lawyer, Baez would have had to do this. If Baez did not, Casey might have to try to file a complaint against Baez? Complicated… but maybe there’s a source of funds to help Casey in her defense to go after someone if she loses Macaluso over this bar complaint.

  5. Annals says:

    Macaluso is on film entering the courthouse with Baez earlier today, Thurs April 2 to take depositions. (WFTV) He is still on he case.

  6. Sister says:

    What happened at that hearing scheduled for April 8th? Is he qualified to be the lead attorney now?

    Either way, Mac is not death penalty qualified so he could not be lead anyway.. He is a civil litigator.
    His 3/24 status hearing he requested referral to ADP. Motion of same, filed. His status hearing scheduled 4/8 was continued on that day, as he selected new counsel, for 4/29, IIRC. This is looking like a dependence or mental Health issue, should be interesting considering if that’s true, I am thinking he is opening himself up to civil suits from his clients as well. This happened 3 diff times the bar knows about, and a Whopper of a check Im not sure they do, almost $300K, over an almost 4 year period. If your not on your game, and you negotiated settlements, if I am not happy with my cut, Im knocking on your door.. KWIM? Strickland has not ruled on his pro hac vice motion that I can tell?

  7. Sister says:

    Thanks Blink. It looks like he might want to take his plane and head, I don’t know where. That saying is so true about putting oneself out for public scrunity. This will not be a sleeping dog and I can’t imagine Judge Strickland granting the motion — wonder if that is why the Judge filed a complaint against BoZo — that would have been his responsibility to speak for the Macster. Yeah, I see civil suits all over the place. Was thinking it helps the employment rate, but with all this pro bono, who knows?

  8. Sister says:

    I heard today the Judge did grant the motion as soon as Macster pays filing fees? Bother, I am confused.

  9. Sister says:

    Can hardly wait for an update om Macster scheduled for tomorrow!!

  10. Sister says:

    Any news?

  11. Gilly says:

    Hi Blink,
    I’m still following the Macaluso Gong Show. Looks like the case is heating up and if I’m reading correctly, its going to trial.

    Case Name Case Number Time Date Event Venue Judge
    Macaluso, Todd E 06 O 14552 9:30 AM Tuesday, September 22, 2009 Pretrial Conference Appearance LA Hon. Richard A. Honn
    (Hearing Dept.)
    Macaluso, Todd E 06 O 14552 9:30 AM Tuesday, September 29, 2009 Hearing/Formal (Disciplinary/Regulatory) Appearance LA Hon. Richard A. Honn
    (Hearing Dept.)
    Macaluso, Todd E 06 O 14552 9:30 AM Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Hearing/Formal (Disciplinary/Regulatory) Appearance LA Hon. Richard A. Honn
    (Hearing Dept.)

    He is on a weekly ADP review, but his conf on the 8/10 date has no notations. I am watching this like a hawk as well, lol.

  12. [...] is currently undergoing California Bar complaint proceedings, alleging millions of misused client trust accounts, as well as facing an [...]

  13. boogiealbert says:

    what with all of macaluso’s problems concerning adp i could probably add fuel to the fire since i happen to be a past client of his.
    Welcome. What was your experience?

  14. Gilly says:

    Hiya Blink,
    Any news yet for todays hearing? I am trolling the California Bar site and all the newspapers. Hope to get some kind of news today.
    Starts at 4:30PM EST, 1:30PM EST, there was a sub of council on 9/15- again…

  15. Gilly says:

    Thanks so much! Hope you are having a great day.


  16. [...] As predicted exclusively at, Macaluso informed Casey and her defense team that he would not be able to represent her in the murder charge against her due to entering the alternative discipline program with the California Bar Association (CBA). [...]

  17. Heidi says:

    Blink. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I know I gawk at the site every chance I get, and that most don’t understand why I do… But this site is educational. With today’s high-tech wizardry how can anyone think their past actions will not bit you in the ass, when they know darn well they “shouldn’t have” when they “could have”.

    I’m tired of cheating society who thinks they are owed. For example: A co-worker of mine works 40 hours a week, has a blue disability tag for “free” metered parking on the street and is perpetuity late for work because they couldn’t find a parking spot and had to walk two city blocks!@#$$% WHAT? How about leaving for work .15 min early!!!!!! This person’s paycheck is the same as I, yet I have to pay a large fee to park and she gets it free and can be late to boot. If it’s free, they’ll take it. If it’s wrong, they think no one will notice. If it’s too late, they will say it was “because so and so” instead of “I won’t do it again”.

    Macaluso is off the case, thank god. Jose should be next… because he is a complete joke to watch and I don’t any juror will even take time to listen to what comes out of his mouth. I do want Caylee to win big, and I do want society to learn from this. THIS IS NO DREAM TEAM! The lot of them are 7 degrees of separation. Likeness follows likeness, and I’d hate to be an associated in this legal team. When is Casey’s White Flag gonna be found? Are they waiting for it to be so soiled that it decomposes and becomes “junk science”? Please!

  18. RF says:

    Oh boy.

    I need to confirm, can you post the other links while I find the eye wash?


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment