In Re: Edward Bissau Mendy, 217 So. 3d 260

Edward Bissau Mendy, admitted 1993, was already suspended (three-year suspension in 2012) and had a prior six‑month suspension (2001).
ODC charged Mendy with multiple counts: issuing an NSF trust account check; failing to disclose/maintain proper trust account records; neglecting and abandoning client matters after accepting fees (Charles: $3,300; Platt: $1,500); and failing to cooperate with ODC investigations.
Mendy did not answer the formal charges; the factual allegations were therefore deemed admitted under Supreme Court Rule XIX §11(E)(3). He also failed to appear for subpoenaed sworn statement and largely did not participate in proceedings.
Hearing committee and disciplinary board found violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, identified numerous aggravating factors (dishonest motive, pattern, prior discipline, failure to cooperate), and recommended suspension (committee: 1 year + 1 day; board: 3 years plus restitution).
The ODC sought disbarment; the Court, after independent review and noting repeated, similar misconduct and abandonment of clients with unrefunded fees, ordered disbarment and restitution. One justice dissented, favoring permanent disbarment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent committed professional misconduct (neglect, failure to refund, failure to cooperate)	ODC: facts deemed admitted show neglect, misappropriation/unsafe trust handling, failure to refund, and noncooperation violating multiple RPCs	Mendy: largely unresponsive; later claimed no notice and stated no intent to practice, declined resignation-in-lieu options	Court: factual allegations deemed admitted; respondent violated Rules and caused actual harm
Proper baseline sanction (suspension vs. disbarment)	ODC: due to repeated, similar offenses and client harm, baseline and totality support disbarment	Mendy: no substantive defense or mitigation presented; sought voluntary surrender but declined formal resignation option	Court: baseline is suspension but aggravating factors and prior discipline support disbarment; ordered disbarment
Whether respondent received adequate notice and was entitled to remand/new hearing	ODC: provided certified mail, email, and phone contact demonstrating notice; no basis for remand	Mendy: alleged lack of notice (motion)	Court: ODC demonstrated adequate notice; motion denied
Remedies: restitution and costs	ODC: requested restitution and costs in addition to disbarment	Mendy: did not contest restitution substantively	Court: ordered restitution to victims and assessed costs with legal interest

In re: Mendy, 793 So.2d 1225 (La. 2001) (prior six‑month suspension for neglect, failure to communicate, and noncooperation)
In re: Mendy, 81 So.3d 650 (La. 2012) (prior three‑year suspension for neglect, failure to communicate, failure to account/refund fees, and failure to return files)
In re: Hyman, 34 So.3d 254 (La. 2010) (three‑year suspension for neglect, failure to communicate/return files, and noncooperation; used as comparative guidance)
In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (appellate standard: court reviews disciplinary record de novo as trier of fact)
In re: Doman, 838 So.2d 715 (La. 2003) (deemed‑admitted facts supply proof of misconduct but legal conclusions may require additional proof)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (purposes of discipline: protect public, preserve profession integrity, deter misconduct)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La. 1984) (discipline depends on facts, seriousness, and aggravating/mitigating factors)