Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Matthew A. LeFande, a suspended member of the District of Columbia Bar, was found by the Board on Professional Responsibility to have committed seven violations of the District of Columbia and Maryland Rules of Professional Responsibility. These violations stemmed from his involvement in several legal matters, including the District Title litigation, the Warren bankruptcy matter, the Carvalho bankruptcy matter, and his own personal bankruptcy. LeFande's misconduct included orchestrating a transfer of funds to conceal assets, filing frivolous bankruptcy petitions, making false statements to tribunals, and failing to comply with court orders.In the District Title litigation, LeFande represented Anita Warren and her son, Timothy Day, after District Title erroneously wired funds to Warren. LeFande directed the transfer of $82,051.81 to a New Zealand bank account, which was seen as an attempt to conceal assets. He later refused to comply with court orders to sit for a deposition, resulting in criminal and civil contempt findings. In the Warren bankruptcy matter, LeFande filed a petition to avoid deposition, which was deemed frivolous, leading to sanctions. In the Carvalho bankruptcy matter, LeFande's actions were found to be in bad faith, resulting in sanctions for frivolous filings and misrepresentations.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and agreed with the Board's findings of misconduct. The court noted that LeFande's actions were part of a prolonged pattern of dishonesty and interference with the administration of justice. Given the severity and persistence of his misconduct, along with his lack of remorse and failure to participate in the disciplinary process, the court concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. The court ordered that Matthew A. LeFande be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. View "In re LeFande" on Justia Law

The respondent, a member of the District of Columbia Bar, was indefinitely suspended from practicing law in Maryland by consent. The suspension was contingent on several conditions, including a satisfactory report from a mental health or substance abuse professional addressing the respondent's alcohol and drug issues. Subsequently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an order suspending the respondent and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed. The respondent did not file a response or the required affidavit.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The Disciplinary Counsel recommended that the respondent's reinstatement be conditioned on his reinstatement in Maryland and a demonstration of fitness. The court noted that the respondent had not participated in the proceedings and had not filed the necessary affidavit.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from practicing law in the District of Columbia, with a fitness requirement. The respondent must comply with all conditions imposed by Maryland and demonstrate that he has addressed his mental health and substance abuse issues. The respondent may seek reinstatement after five years or after being reinstated by Maryland, whichever occurs first. The suspension will not begin until the respondent files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). View "In re Sayadian" on Justia Law