Washington Lawyer - November/December 2022 - 36

DISCIPLINARY SUMMARIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Original Matters
In re Scott B. Blumenfeld. Bar No. 501870. July
21, 2022. The D.C. Court of Appeals granted
Blumenfeld's petition for reinstatement.
In re Claudia PS Botty-Van Den Bruele. Bar No.
459210. July 14, 2022. The D.C. Court of Appeals
accepted Botty-Van Den Bruele's petition for
negotiated discipline and suspended her for
60 days, with 30 days stayed with conditions.
Botty-Van Den Bruele voluntarily acknowledged
that she failed to (1) communicate, in
writing before or within a reasonable time after
commencing a representation, the basis or rate
of the fee and the scope of the representation;
(2) maintain complete financial records; and (3)
treat advances of unearned fees and costs as
client property without obtaining informed
consent to a different arrangement in violation
of Rules 1.5(b), 1.15(a), and 1.15(e).
In re Clarissa Thomas Edwards. Bar No. 434607.
July 28, 2022. The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended
Edwards for two years with fitness.
Edwards commingled her funds with entrusted
funds and failed to maintain those records. In
addition, Edwards made a reckless misrepresentation
concerning her disciplinary history
when she failed to report her 2009 public
censure on a D.C. District Court attorney
renewal form. (Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c) and D.C.
Bar R. XI, § 19(f).)
In re Tina D. Greene. Bar No. 991933. June 16,
2022. The D.C. Court of Appeals accepted
Greene's petition for negotiated discipline and
suspended her for 60 days, with all 60 days
stayed in favor of a one-year period of probation
with conditions for violations of Rules
1.3(a), 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.5(b), and 8.4(d). Greene
voluntarily acknowledged that she failed to
respond to a motion to compel, failed to communicate
with her client about certain aspects
of the representation, did not provide a written
fee agreement, charged an unreasonable fee,
and interfered with an ongoing disciplinary
investigation.
In re Deni-Antionette Mazingo-Mayronne.
Bar No. 479656. June 9, 2022. The D.C. Court
of Appeals disbarred Mazingo-Mayronne for
repeated flagrant acts of dishonesty in her
representation of multiple clients, violating
the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and
Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional
Conduct. One judge dissented, believing that
disbarment instead of a substantial suspension
was inconsistent with sanctions imposed in
similar cases.
The first matter involved various cases arising
from Mazingo-Mayronne's practice before
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of 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, violating Maryland Rules
19-303.3(a)(1), 19-304.4(c), 19.305.5(a) and (b)(1),
and 19-308.4(c) (numbers as revised, effective
July 1, 2016). In a second matter, concerning
Mazingo-Mayronne's Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy,
she gained " the benefits of bankruptcy
discharge " based on perjured statements
in violation of Maryland Rules 19-303.3(a)(1),
19-308.4(c), and 19-308.4(d) (numbers as
revised, effective July 1, 2016). In a third matter,
while retained to represent a client in a matter
involving an automobile accident in Maryland,
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 time 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 the
representation is terminated, threatened the
client with a lien on her recovery from the
insurance company (the client had to retain
new counsel specifically to address the lien
issue), and intentionally disclosed client confidences,
including legal strategy, to the insurance
company and then made 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 re David B. Nolan Sr. Bar No. 379804. June 16,
2022. The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended
Nolan for three years, with reinstatement conditioned
on proof of fitness, restitution to a
client, and full compliance with all pending
requests for information or subpoenas from
Disciplinary Counsel and related requests for
information from the Board on Professional
Responsibility or any court. In this consolidated
matter, Nolan, among other things, neglected
two client matters, failed to communicate with
his clients, charged an unreasonable fee and
failed to provide an accounting thereof,
engaged in dishonesty, failed to respond to
Disciplinary Counsel's requests for information,
failed to comply with Board and court orders,
engaged in serious interference with the
administration of justice, was convicted of
serious crimes, made knowingly false statements
of fact to a tribunal, and committed
criminal acts that reflected adversely upon his
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
(Rules 1.1(a) and (b); 1.2(a); 1.3(a), (b)(1), (b)(2),
and (c); 1.4(a) and (b); 1.5(a) and (b); 1.15(b);
3.3(a)(1); 8.1(b); 8.4(b), (c), and (d); and D.C. Bar
Rule XI, §§ 2(b)(3) and 10(b).)
In re Lawrence D. O'Neill. Bar No. 265702. June
16, 2022. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred
O'Neill, with reinstatement conditioned upon
full restitution as well as the costs of litigating
the action in Ireland. This matter arises from
O'Neill's representation of a client in Ireland
and his handling of entrusted funds obtained
from the sale of the client's stake in a jointly
held business. The court agreed with the Board
on Professional Responsibility's findings that
O'Neill engaged in intentional misappropriation;
was knowingly dishonest to a tribunal and
to Disciplinary Counsel; engaged in larceny,
theft, and wire fraud; and engaged in dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. In
addition, O'Neill engaged in rule violations
pertaining to written fee agreements and
record-keeping. Finally, O'Neill failed to
promptly deliver client funds and render a full
accounting, failed to return client funds upon
termination, knowingly disobeyed obligations
under the rules of a tribunal, and seriously
interfered with the administration of justice.
(Rules 1.5(b); 1.15(a) and (c); 1.16(d); 3.3(a)(1);
3.4(c); 8.1(a); and 8.4(b), (c), and (d).)
In re Azubuike Osemene. Bar No. 496245. July
14, 2022. The D.C. Court of Appeals publicly
censured Osemene. While retained in California
through a law firm called the Legal Clinic to
represent a client in an immigration matter,
Osemene failed to provide the client with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
36 WASHINGTON LAWYER * NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2022
Washington Lawyer - November/December 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Lawyer - November/December 2022
