La Mesa, CA 91941-5255
6 March 2008 | Resigned (17 years, 2 months ago) Resignation with charges pending 07-Q-12153 |
---|---|
4 June 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 11 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 07-Q-12153 |
18 September 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
22 February 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 03-O-02903 |
20 July 2004 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 03-O-03237 (20 years, 9 months ago) |
4 January 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 02-O-10705 |
22 December 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 03-O-02903 (21 years, 4 months ago) |
20 May 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-O-13935 (21 years, 11 months ago) |
8 October 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-O-10705 (22 years, 7 months ago) |
11 January 2001 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 00-O-10084 (24 years, 3 months ago) |
23 February 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-10084 (25 years, 2 months ago) |
21 February 1998 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 96-C-01397 (27 years, 2 months ago) |
20 March 1996 | Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 96-C-01397 (29 years, 1 month ago) |
21 August 1992 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (32 years, 8 months ago) |
February 22, 2006 THOMAS C. LOFFARELLI [#159724], 52, of Studio City was suspended for five years, stayed, and was placed on five years of probation with an actual three-year suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 22, 2006. Loffarelli stipulated to eight counts of misconduct in two matters.He represented a brother and sister as plaintiff trustees in a trust matter involving a deceased sibling’s estate. Loffarelli received more than $16,000 on his clients’ behalf and deposited the money in his client trust account. Within a week, the balance in the account was reduced by half. He told the clients he was holding their funds because the opposing party might have a claim against the money.Six months later, the clients asked for the money and for an accounting of their $14,000-plus legal fee. Loffarelli never gave them any portion of the money because he mistakenly believed he could keep it as his fee.He stipulated that he failed to maintain client funds in trust, render accounts to his clients, respond to their reasonable status inquiries or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.In the second matter, Loffarelli filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tommy Trojan Management LLC, a corporation he owned, against Oscar Plascencia. He claimed that Tommy Trojan had a 50 percent interest in a property purchased by Plascencia in Gloucester. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition as a result of the plaintiffs’ failure to appear.Loffarelli then filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of Plascencia to protect the Gloucester property from foreclosure. Loffarelli listed Tommy Trojan as one of Plascencia’s creditors, but never disclosed that he owed the company that claimed a 50 percent interest in the Gloucester property. The petition was converted to Chapter 13 but was dismissed with a 180-day bar against refiling without prior court approval. Despite that order, Loffarelli filed another bankruptcy petition within two weeks. It was rejected and in answer to an order to show cause, Loffarelli said the petition was not an attempt to circumvent the prior court order.He never disclosed that he held an interest adverse to Plascencia and made misleading statements to the court. Loffarelli also later served as a real estate broker when the property was sold, receiving a $16,750 commission.He stipulated that he pursued a bankruptcy petition knowing that there was no way he could forestall foreclosure on the Gloucester property, sought to mislead a judge and violated federal bankruptcy law by failing to disclose to the court that he had an interest adverse to the petitioner.Loffarelli has been disciplined three times: in 1998 he was convicted of violating a restraining order; in 2001 for violating his disciplinary probation; and in 2004 for multiple acts of misconduct, including moral turpitude by misleading a judge.He cooperated with the bar’s investigation.January 4, 2004 THOMAS CHARLES LOFFARELLI [#159724], 50, of Studio City was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Jan. 4, 2004. Loffarelli stipulated to misconduct in two matters. He settled a personal injury case for $24,000, which he deposited in an individual’s checking account. His client could not negotiate the check Loffarelli wrote to him because he did not have an account in the bank where the money was deposited; the client, therefore, returned the check to Loffarelli.Loffarelli wrote several checks against the checking account to his father, an attorney, totaling $10,000. The father then wrote several checks to the client written against his trust account. Loffarelli did not respond to his client’s requests that he pay the client’s doctors.The client and Loffarelli’s father wrote to Loffarelli, asking that he refund at least $5,700 to pay the doctors, but Loffarelli did not respond. He also did not respond to requests from another doctor, nor did he provide an accounting to his client, as requested twice.He stipulated that he misappropriated at least $5,700 in client funds and failed to maintain client funds in trust, pay out client funds or render accounts. In a second matter, he filed a bankruptcy petition for an individual who was not a client without that person’s knowledge. The petition was filed on the eve of foreclosure on a property the person owned. Loffarelli was the property manager and had a partnership in the property.As a result of the bankruptcy filing, the foreclosure sale was continued for two months.When the property owner learned about the bankruptcy, he contacted the fraud unit of the U.S. Trustee’s Office, providing documents that bore forged signatures and contained inaccurate information. The trustee won a request that the case be dismissed.Loffarelli admitted to forgery and submitting inaccurate schedules, and also admitted he would benefit financially if the property were sold by the owners rather than foreclosed on. He was sanctioned $1,500, but did not report the sanctions to the bar.He stipulated that he committed acts of moral turpitude, sought to mislead a judge, filed an action without authority and failed to report sanctions to the bar.Loffarelli also was disciplined in 1998 following a conviction for violating a restraining order and in 2001 for failing to comply with probation conditions. In mitigation, Loffarelli says he had the oral authorization to file the bankruptcy, and in the first case, the client is a longtime friend and employee who has borrowed money from him.January 11, 2001 THOMAS C. LOFFARELLI [#159724], 47, of Sherman Oaks was suspended for one year, stayed, and was placed on one year of probation. The order took effect Jan. 11, 2001. Loffarelli violated the probation conditions attached to a 1998 probation by failing to file eight written statements showing that he had been obtaining psychiatric or psychological treatment at least twice a month.The discipline was the result of a 1996 conviction for disobeying a court-ordered restraining order.February 21, 1998 THOMAS C. LOFFARELLI [#159724], 44, of Sherman Oaks was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on probation for two years, effective Feb. 21, 1998. He was ordered to pass the MPRE. Loffarelli was convicted of a misdemeanor for violation of a restraining order obtained by a woman he dated for about a year. It was stipulated that the conviction did not constitute an act of moral turpitude.His misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing, considered an aggravating factor. There were no factors in mitigation. |