Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-BG-601 IN RE DENI-ANTIONETTE MAZINGO-MAYRONNE, RESPONDENT. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 479656) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN-446-07, BDN-047-11, BDN-405-14) (Argued February 8, 2022 Decided June 9, 2022) John O. Iweanoge, II for respondent. Myles V. Lynk, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, with whom Hamilton P. Fox, III, Disciplinary Counsel, was on the brief, for petitioner. Before EASTERLY and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge. * Opinion for the court PER CURIAM. Dissenting opinion by Senior Judge THOMPSON at page 11. * Senior Judge Thompson was an Associate Judge of the court at the time of argument. On October 4, 2021, she was appointed as a Senior Judge but she continued to serve as an Associate Judge until February 17, 2022. See D.C. Code §§ 11-1502, -1504(b)(3) (2012 Repl.). On February 18, 2022, she began her service as a Senior Judge. See D.C. Code § 11-1504. 2 PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility determined that respondent Deni-Antionette Julia Mazingo-Mayronne committed flagrant acts of dishonesty that violated the District of Columbia and Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board recommended that Ms. Mayronne be disbarred. Ms. Mayronne does not challenge the findings of misconduct, instead arguing solely that disbarment is not an appropriate sanction. We accept the Board’s recommended sanction of disbarment. I. The Board’s recommendation of disbarment rests on the following, among other things. 1. Ms. Mayronne was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 2002 and to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in 2005. From 2002 to 2005, Ms. Mayronne repeatedly filed forms for clients in bankruptcy cases stating that she was a non-attorney petition preparer. Ms. Mayronne did not meet the definition of a petition preparer, because she was an attorney, was giving legal advice, and was charging her clients accordingly. Ms. Mayronne made 3 knowingly false statements in those filings. Although Ms. Mayronne testified at the disciplinary hearing that she did not know that she was making false statements in the filings, the Hearing Committee did not credit that testimony. 2. When Ms. Mayronne applied in 2005 to be admitted to the District of Maryland Bar, she intentionally and falsely denied having prior criminal convictions. Ms. Mayronne’s testimony at the disciplinary hearing about why she did that was not credible to the Hearing Committee. 3. In 2005, Ms. Mayronne intentionally made numerous false statements in connection with her personal bankruptcy. Ms. Mayronne did not provide any explanation for some of those false statements, and her explanation for one false statement was not credible to the Hearing Committee. 4. In 2006, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals