In re Mendy
2012 La. LEXIS 306
La.2012Background
- ODC filed formal charges against Edward Bissau Mendy in 09-DB-053 and 09-DB-073; the matter proceeded to a consolidated hearing before a hearing committee.
- Tucker matter: Tucker hired Mendy to prepare tax returns and negotiate an IRS offer in compromise, paid $2,000 of a $5,000 fee, and later claimed she settled the issue; Mendy also handled LLC documents for about $1,000, which Tucker alleged was worth far less.
- Fuller matter: the Fullers hired Mendy for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, paid $500 with a $1,000 due, and Mendy failed to file the petition as promised, leading to foreclosure concerns and sanctions after a petition was prepared with the secretary’s help.
- Vaughn matter: Vaughn paid fees for succession and tax work, Mendy failed to provide status updates, terminated representation, and an arbitrator awarded $10,500 against Mendy which was not timely paid.
- Mentor matter: Mentor paid $1,500 for foreclosure defense and possible Chapter 13 action, Mendy did not file a petition or timely act, resulting in foreclosure and sale of the home; ODC alleged incompetence and misrepresentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mendy negligent in multiple matters violating duties to clients and the profession? | ODC: yes, multiple violations established. | Mendy: no intentional misconduct; defenses insufficent. | Yes; violations found across matters. |
| Did Mendy violate specific Rules 1.3 and 8.4(d) in Fuller by delaying and obstructing proceedings? | Fuller matter shows lack of diligence and improper conduct. | Defendant contends no deliberate misconduct. | Yes; violations proven, including 1.3 and 8.4(d). |
| Did the Vaughn matter prove violations of 1.3, 1.5, and 1.15 and support 8.4(a) (with 1.4 not proven)? | ODC: violations established. | Vaughn 1.4 not proven. | Yes for 1.3, 1.5, 1.15, and 8.4(a); 1.4 not proven. |
| Did Mentor matter establish violations of 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a) (excluding 8.4(c))? | ODC: serious misconduct, loss of home. | Mentor mischaracterized representation. | Yes; violations found for 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a); 8.4(c) not proven. |
| Is a three-year suspension appropriate sanction given the aggregate misconduct? | Board recommended three years; restitution. | Mendy urged lesser sanction based on mitigating factors. | Three-year suspension with restitution required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (manifest-error review and discipline standards applied)
- In re: Caulfield, 683 So.2d 714 (La. 1996) (independence of fact-finding and clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re: Pardue, 633 So.2d 150 (La. 1994) (discipline framework and aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (disciplinary standards and public protection)
- In re: Brown, 892 So.2d 1 (La. 2005) (extensive client harm supports substantial sanction)
- In re: Mendy, 793 So.2d 1225 (La. 2001) (prior discipline involving neglect and misconduct)