Deni-Antionette Mazingo

DCCA Opinion (June 9, 2022)

Summary: 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).

DCCA Order (November 25, 2020)

Summary: In re Deni-Antoinette Mazingo-Mayronne. Bar No. 479656. November 25, 2020. Mazingo-Mayronne was suspended on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g), pending final action on the Board on Professional Responsibility’s October 13, 2020, recommendation of disbarment.

Board Report and Orders (October 13, 2020)

Summary: 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.

Hearing Committee Report (October 21, 2019)

Summary: Not yet available.