Craig Thomas Formica is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 13th November 1996. Craig graduated from Western State University COL.

Lawyer Information

NameCraig Thomas Formica
First Admitted13 November 1996 (27 years, 5 months ago)
StatusActive
Bar Number187574

Contact

Current Email[email protected]
Phone Number909-599-7000
Fax Number909-599-7003

Schools

Law SchoolWestern State University COL (Irvine CA)
Undergraduate SchoolCalifornia St University Fullerton (CA)

Address

Current AddressLaw Ofc Craig T Formica, APC, 464 E Bonita Ave, Suite A
San Dimas, CA 91773
Map

History

13 April 2005Active (19 years ago)
12 February 2005Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 2 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 03-O-03721
21 October 2003Public reproval with/duties 03-O-00494 (20 years, 6 months ago)
13 November 1996Admitted to the State Bar of California (27 years, 5 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

February 12, 2005

CRAIG THOMAS FORMICA [#187574], 44, of City of Industry was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 12, 2005.

Formica stipulated to misconduct in five cases.

It was not until the State Bar contacted Formica that he became aware that an employee was hiding or stealing his mail, taking his phone calls, taking some files and forging his signature. Once he learned of the problem, he undertook an investigation of more than 2,000 files in his office and determined that about 75 cases were dismissed due to his failure to appear or comply with court orders. He successfully reinstated 50 cases and paid more than $235,000 to clients in cases that could not be reinstated.

In a personal injury case, he filed a complaint but failed to appear for the jury trial and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Although he tried to have the dismissal vacated and offered a declaration from his secretary, who admitted she failed to calendar jury trial dates, the court denied the motion to reinstate the case. Formica stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently.

In another personal injury case, Formica never received a settlement offer from the insurance company and the statute of limitations ran on the claims. Formica discovered the failure to protect the statute when he audited his files, notified the client about what happened and settled the client’s legal malpractice claims against him.

Formica was sanctioned twice in two separate matters for failing to appear at hearings or participate in discovery, and both cases were dismissed. He learned about the dismissals while auditing his cases and filed successful motions to vacate the dismissals.

Another personal injury case was dismissed as a result of Formica’s failure to appear at hearings or comply with court orders. His motion to reinstate the case was denied and he settled the client’s malpractice claim against him.

In a product liability case based on the alleged failure of a child’s car seat, the client entrusted the car seat to Formica and his investigator took videotape and photographs of the child’s injuries. During the course of his problems with the State Bar, Formica urged the client to find a new attorney. The videotape and photos were missing from the files he provided, and Formica’s efforts to find them were unsuccessful.

Formica stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, comply with court orders or return client files. He was also privately reproved in 2003 for failing to perform legal services with competence.

In a statement with the stipulation, Formica said his failure to adequately supervise his employees led to his problems, and that he undertook a “program of damage control,” contacted the majority of affected clients, reinstated many cases and paid large amounts of money to settle his clients’ grievances. He has downsized his practice.