Michael Henry Maurice Todaro was admitted to the California Bar 4th June 1994, but is now resigned. Michael graduated from Stanford University Law School.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Michael Henry Maurice Todaro |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 4 June 1994 (30 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Resigned |
| Bar Number | 170248 |
Schools
| Law School | Stanford University Law School (Stanford CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | California St University Long Beach (CA) |
Location
| Current Address | 75 Toll, Hoa Trung, Vinh Hoa, Nha Trang Khanh Hoa, VIETNAM |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 25 February 2009 | Resigned (16 years, 2 months ago) Resignation with charges pending 08-Q-12547 |
|---|---|
| 2 July 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 10 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 08-Q-12547 |
| 28 March 2008 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-N-10856 (17 years, 1 month ago) |
| 5 January 2008 | Inactive (17 years, 4 months ago) |
| 5 October 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 7 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-03199 |
| 1 February 2007 | Inactive (18 years, 3 months ago) |
| 29 September 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-03199 (18 years, 7 months ago) |
| 4 June 1994 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (30 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
October 5, 2007 MICHAEL HENRY MAURICE TODARO [#170248], 62, of Khanh Hoa, Vietnam was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a three-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Oct. 5, 2007. Todaro stipulated to three counts of misconduct in two client matters.In the first, he represented a married couple in civil litigation with a contractor. After the client asked for an accounting of his $5,000 fee, Todaro claimed about $30,000 in fees and costs. The client objected, complained to the State Bar and told Todaro he planned to file a small claims action and seek fee arbitration from the local bar association.The client filed a small claims action that he and Todaro settled. As partial consideration for Todaro’s agreement to forgo suing the client for fees and for continuing to represent him in the civil case, the client agreed to drop his complaint to the bar.Todaro stipulated that he sought and entered into an agreement to withdraw a disciplinary complaint against him.In a civil action against an insurance company, Todaro’s client grew dissatisfied with him and fired him, two days after her sister warned Todaro of her plans. Todaro e-mailed an independent insurance adjuster with whom the client previously negotiated her claim and told him the client was “on the warpath,†was “going ballistic†and planned to hire a lawyer to sue him. Todaro knew the insurance adjuster was a potential adverse party in prospective litigation that involved his client.He later e-mailed the adjuster, further demeaning his client and her motives.Althought Todaro received two letters terminating him, he continued to try to gather documentation to help negotiate a resolution of her claim. When the client instructed him in a third letter to cease any communication with her and to return her $1,500 fee, Todaro did not refund any money.He stipulated that he breached his duty of loyalty to his client and failed to account for client funds.In mitigation, Todaro has no record of discipline in 13 years of practice. |