No Rush To Judgment
An oral argument yesterday before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals involves the Respondent attorney’s exception to findings summarized on the web page of the Board on Professional Responsibility
In re Deni-Antionette Mazingo-Mayronne. Bar No. 479656. October 13, 2020. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Mazingo-Mayronne for misconduct in her representation of multiple clients. The first matter involved various cases arising from her practice before the federal bankruptcy court in Maryland. Despite a July 2006 consent order barring her from practicing in the Bankruptcy Court, Mazingo-Mayronne continued to serve as counsel in a case pending before that court. She violated Maryland Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 5.5(a) and (b)(1), and 8.4(c). In a second matter, concerning her Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy, she gained “the benefits of bankruptcy discharge” based on perjured statements, violating Maryland Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). In a third matter, while retained to represent an existing client in a new matter involving an automobile accident, Mazingo-Mayronne failed to disclose that she was not admitted to practice in Maryland; was inattentive to the client’s instructions and requests for information during the months that she represented the client in negotiations with the insurance company; refused to abide by the terms of her engagement agreement regarding fees and costs due in the event that the representation was terminated; threatened the client with a lien on her recovery from the insurance company, forcing the client to retain new counsel specifically to address the issue of the lien; and intentionally disclosed client confidences, including legal strategy, to the opposing side, followed by false statements about her conduct. Mazingo-Mayronne violated D.C. Rules 1.4(a) and (b); 1.6(a)(1), (2), and (3); 5.5(a); and 7.1(a)(1). In addition, the Board’s determination that she engaged in flagrant dishonesty, not only in the underlying disciplinary violations but also in her responses to the disciplinary charges, contributed to the Board’s recommendation of disbarment.
From the BPR report
Respondent spent her entire legal career throughout the period detailed in Hearing Committee report engaged in repeated dishonesty before courts, followed by intentional falsehoods to courts and to the Hearing Committee that were designed to cover up her dishonesty. Immediately upon admission to practice as an attorney, Respondent submitted bankruptcy petitions in the Bankruptcy Court falsely certifying that she was a non-attorney filer. Respondent did this dozens of times over a period of years, including even after she was a member of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Notably (or lamentably depending on one’s point of view) the series of cases at issue here involve sets of charges first filed in 2014.
Thus a case that led to findings of “flagrant dishonesty” spends eight years in litigation to reach the court.
And it appears that such delays are sufficiently routine that it is not an issue. (Mike Frisch)