Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Mendy

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 25, 2018

IN RE: EDWARD BISSAU MENDY

         ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

          PER CURIAM.

         This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Edward Bissau Mendy, a disbarred attorney.

         PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

         Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent's prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1993. In 2001, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months, followed by six months of probation, for failing to competently represent clients, neglecting and failing to expedite legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings. In re: Mendy, 01-1462 (La. 8/31/01), 793 So.2d 1225 ("Mendy I").

         In 2012, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for three years for neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to account for or refund unearned fees, and failing to return client files. In re: Mendy, 11-2275 (La. 2/17/12), 81 So.3d 650 ("Mendy II").

         In 2016, we disbarred respondent for neglecting legal matters, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings. In re Mendy, 16-0456 (La. 10/19/16), 217 So.3d 260 ("Mendy III").

         Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the instant proceeding.

         FORMAL CHARGES

         In August 2009, Tyler Malejko retained respondent to prepare a patent application, to represent him as needed to perfect his patent, and to explore various beneficial strategies related to the patent. Under the terms of their written agreement, Mr. Malejko agreed to pay respondent a $7, 000 flat fee, regardless of the actual time expended on the case, for up to thirty-five hours of legal services. In addition to that amount, Mr. Malejko agreed to pay legal fees at the rate of $250 per hour, up to a maximum additional fee of $5, 500. Mr. Malejko paid respondent $7, 000 towards the $12, 500 fee. Mr. Malejko produced a Chase Bank receipt reflecting the $7, 000 deposit into respondent's checking account. By e-mail dated January 7, 2010, respondent acknowledged receiving the payment. However, there is no evidence that respondent took any action in the matter.

         In February 2015, Mr. Malejko filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint.

         DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

         In February 2016, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(c) (a lawyer is required to comply with all of the requirements of the Supreme Court's rules regarding annual registration), 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

         Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.