Michael Anthony Lotta was admitted to the California Bar 16th December 1980, but has since been disbarred. Michael graduated from Loyola Law School.

Lawyer Information

NameMichael Anthony Lotta
First Admitted16 December 1980 (44 years, 4 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number94301

Contact

Phone Number562-438-9137
Fax Number562-438-9138

Schools

Law SchoolLoyola Law School (Los Angeles CA)
Undergraduate SchoolLoyola Marymount University (Los Angeles CA)

Address

Current AddressLaw Offices of Michael A. Lotta, 3836 E Anaheim St
Long Beach, CA 90804
Map

History

15 October 2016Disbarred (8 years, 6 months ago)
Disbarment 13-O-16289
1 July 2016Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 10 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pay fees
6 May 2016Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 12 months ago)
Ordered inactive 13-O-16289
13 January 2016Active (9 years, 3 months ago)
9 November 2015Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 5 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 13-O-11980
2 January 2015Active (10 years, 4 months ago)
4 October 2014Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 7 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 13-O-11980
21 August 2014Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 13-O-16289 (10 years, 8 months ago)
16 December 2013Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 13-O-11980 (11 years, 4 months ago)
22 April 2006Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 03-O-03162 (19 years ago)
2 February 2005Active (20 years, 3 months ago)
26 January 2005Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 03-O-03162 (20 years, 3 months ago)
4 December 2004Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 5 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 00-O-15609
4 September 2003Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-15609 (21 years, 8 months ago)
16 December 1980Admitted to the State Bar of California (44 years, 4 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

October 15, 2016

MICHAEL ANTHONY LOTTA [#94301], 61, of Long Beach, was disbarred Oct. 15, 2016 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

A State Bar Court hearing judge found Lotta culpable of failing to perform competently and keep his client informed of significant developments in her case. The judge found four factors in aggravation, including his prior discipline and lack of insight into his misconduct. Both Lotta and the Office of Chief Trial Counsel appealed. A three-judge review panel found “clear and convincing” evidence Lotta failed to act competently and keep his client apprised, noting that from the outset he believed her case was weak.

“His doubts were confirmed after she was deposed by her former employer, Rite Aid, yet he neither withdrew nor took affirmative steps to protect her interests,” Judge Judith A. Epstein wrote on behalf of the panel. “Instead, Lotta pursued an unauthorized strategy of litigation intentionally failing to respond to Rite Aid’s discovery requests or to oppose its motions to compel, for summary judgment, and for terminating sanctions.”

Despite doubting the strength of her claims, Lotta entered into a fee agreement with his client, filing a lawsuit against Rite Aid on behalf of her and a coworker in June 2012. At one point, he received written discovery requests from his client but was not satisfied with the information they contained so he asked for and was granted three extensions to respond to discovery. In the meantime, he sent three letters to his client letting her know the trial schedule and the date of her deposition, but failing to tell her discovery responses were inadequate and when the responses were due. He later sent her verification forms to sign after the deadline to respond had already passed. Lotta’s office had prepared draft responses based on his client’s answers to the discovery requests, but never filed them because Lotta thought they were inadequate.

Lotta ultimately “subjected his client to orders requiring her to pay sanctions and costs and concealed the reason for the sanctions from her,” Epstein wrote.

“Moreover, his inaction foreclosed all options for his client, resulting in a dismissal of her case and depriving her of a trial.”

He had three prior records of discipline.

October 4, 2014

MICHAEL ANTHONY LOTTA [#94301], 59, of Long Beach, was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule 9.20 and make restitution. He was also placed on three years’ probation and faces a two-year suspension if he does not comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation. The order took effect Oct. 4, 2014. Lotta stipulated that he improperly entered into a business transaction with a client. Between 2005 and 2011, Lotta represented a friend in a defamation and a divorce case, but did not always adhere to formalities because of their friendship. In February 2008, while he was still representing him, Lotta borrowed $10,000 from the friend. Their loan agreement was only secured by a promissory note. Lotta did not inform the friend he could seek the advice of independent counsel or give him a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice. The loan had no specific due date, was not secured by any form of collateral and Lotta did not get the friend’s written consent to the terms of the transaction. In November 2009, Lotta repaid $6,500 of the loan but as of the date of his stipulation had not paid back the remaining money. He was ordered to pay $3,500 plus interest in restitution. In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar. Lotta had two prior records of discipline. In 2006, he was suspended for failing to promptly pay client funds. Two years earlier, he was suspended for 21 counts of misconduct in nine cases, including committing moral turpitude and failure to perform with competence, communicate a settlement offer, release a file, deposit client funds in trust account, notify of receipt of client funds, render accounts of client funds, pay client funds promptly, inform client of significant developments or respond to client inquiries.

April 22, 2006

MICHAEL ANTHONY LOTTA [#94301], 50, of Long Beach was suspended for six months, stayed, and placed on one year of probation. The order took effect April 22, 2006.

Lotta filed separate personal injury lawsuits for a client who had been in two accidents. The first went to trial and resulted in a defense verdict. The second settled for $11,000. Lotta took fees of more than $7,500 and the medical bills exceeded the remainder. Although Lotta negotiated a lien reduction with one insurer, he did not pay out any money. He was unable to negotiate reductions with the remaining lienholders. The client received past due notices from a chiropractor and an insurance company sent her bill to its legal department for collection. Lotta took no meaningful steps to negotiate reductions with the lienholders or disburse any of the funds he held for the client.

He stipulated that he failed to promptly pay out client funds.

Lotta was suspended and placed on probation in 2004 after he stipulated to 21 counts of misconduct in nine cases, including failure to perform legal services competently, return client files, pay client funds promptly, respond to client inquiries or inform clients about developments in their cases, and he improperly withdrew from a case.

December 4, 2004

MICHAEL LOTTA [#94301], 49, of Long Beach was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Dec. 4, 2004.

Lotta stipulated to 21 counts of misconduct in nine cases, including failing to perform legal services competently, return client files, pay client funds promptly, respond to client inquiries or inform clients about developments in their cases, and he improperly withdrew from a case.

He represented one client in two personal injury cases. A previous attorney filed suit in one case, and Lotta filed the second complaint after the statute of limitations elapsed.

Lotta settled the first claim for $48,000 but did not tell the client he had received a settlement check. However, Lotta did not cash the check, claiming some of the other payees (his client’s former lawyers) refused to endorse it until an agreement was reached about their attorney fees. Lotta did not seek assistance from the court so his client could receive her share of the money.

Lotta failed to appear at a hearing in the second suit and it was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Again, he did not inform the client.

The client hired a new attorney and demanded that Lotta return her files. He did so after three months.

In another matter, Lotta represented a married couple in separate workers’ compensation claims. An attorney who worked for Lotta received a $9,000 settlement offer of the wife’s claim, but never informed her.

Two and a half years later, Lotta told the couple he no longer handled workers’ comp cases. At that time, they asked that their files be returned; Lotta did so two months later.

In another personal injury case, Lotta’s client provided answers to interrogatories, but Lotta never filed them. He also did not appear at an order to show cause hearing. The case was dismissed.

Several months later, the client requested an update on the status of the case in four separate letters to Lotta. He never responded and the client learned by going to court that the case had been dismissed.

In mitigation, Lotta has no prior record of discipline and has revised his business operations to avoid future problems.