Michael Torrey Wayland - #43768
Current Status: Disbarred
This member is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.
See below for more details.
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
La Canada Flntrdge, CA 91011
|Phone Number:||(818) 790-5666|
|Fax Number:||Not Available|
||Undergraduate School:||Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||UC Hastings COL; San Francisco CA|
|Effective Date||Status Change|
|6/26/1992||Not Eligible To Practice Law|
|9/14/1991||Not Eligible To Practice Law|
|3/16/1991||Not Eligible To Practice Law|
|6/29/1990||Not Eligible To Practice Law|
|1/9/1969||Admitted to The State Bar of California|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries
Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
September 20, 1997
MICHAEL TORREY WAYLAND [#43768], 55, of La Canada Flintridge was disbarred Sept. 20, 1997, and ordered to comply with rule 955.Suspended and placed on probation in 1992, Wayland was ordered to file 10 quarterly probation reports and statements from his psychiatrist. His failure to do so led to the disbarment. Wayland has a long record of misconduct, including five disciplinary cases since 1990. Four times he was placed on actual suspension and the fifth case brought him an additional year of probation because he failed to comply with earlier probation requirements. His misconduct in the past included abandoning clients, failure to communicate with clients, perform legal services competently and return files, improperly withdrawing from representation and practicing while suspended. Wayland did not participate in the disbarment proceedings. Although the court noted that failure to comply with probation requirements is not as egregious as some of his past misconduct, Wayland’s record placed an onus on him. "Further suspension followed by probation would not protect the public given (Wayland’s) attitude, the gravity of his total misconduct, his failure to participate and his history of past misconduct," wrote Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale.