State Bar again cites prominent Charlotte attorney Michael DeMayo for improper conduct
The N.C. State Bar has again disciplined prominent Charlotte attorney Michael DeMayo, this time for violating professional standards in a financial dispute involving a potentially lucrative client.
In an order announced last month, the bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission suspended DeMayo’s license for one year, then modified the punishment and placed the lawyer on two years of probation.
DeMayo says he will appeal the ruling to the N.C. Court of Appeals.
“While I respect the process under which the North Carolina State Bar and DHC regulate attorneys, I strongly disagree with these findings,” DeMayo told The Charlotte Observer on Tuesday.
“I did not violate any of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
The bar’s order, which is put on hold pending the outcome of DeMayo’s appeal, marks the eighth time since 1999 that the legal-watchdog group has publicly disciplined DeMayo for a violation of professional standards — from misleading advertisements and improper direct mail solicitations to the attempted recruitment of clients “using intimidation, coercion or threats.”
The most recent case occurred in 2019, when DeMayo was censured after threatening to have a client arrested if she did not immediately refund a $4,900 overpayment she had received from DeMayo’s firm, according to the court filing.
‘Dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation’
The current matter before the bar dates back to April 2020 when an associate of DeMayo’s firm announced his resignation. One of the associate’s clients, identified in court records by the initials “K.D.,” let DeMayo’s firm know that she wanted the departing associate to keep representing her.
DeMayo’s firm considered K.D. an “A+ client,” with a “$$ case,” according to emails included in the disciplinary order. “We have $1m in liability coverage and a corporate defendant,” as one internal message described the potential for significant legal fees.
DeMayo emailed K.D. to set up a phone conversation. She replied by repeating her plans to retain the former associate. DeMayo countered that they have “a brief conversation” anyway.
The video phone call lasted 80 minutes. At one point, DeMayo appeared to raise questions about his former associate’s ability to represent K.D.
“I’m not really sure what happened to him,” DeMayo said, according to the filing.
“Uh, I don’t want to get into his personal life, but there was a divorce, there was a custody, there was a remarriage, uh, there was an ex-wife dating one of the defense lawyers we go up against all the time, so I’m sure all of that had some impact on his productivity.”
Later, when a dispute arose over what share of K.D.’s legal fees DeMayo’s firm should receive, the former associate confronted DeMayo about his previous comments about the divorce.
According to the filing, DeMayo replied that the associate’s “personal struggles” would “never have been fodder for topic of discussion with anyone, much less a client.”
In its ruling, the bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission found that DeMayo’s denial amounted to “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation that reflects adversely on (DeMayo’s) fitness as a lawyer.”
Previous disciplinary cases
The disciplinary commission did dismiss an allegation that DeMayo had threatened to report the former associate to the State Bar if he did not settle the dispute over K.D.’s legal fees.
However, in finding that DeMayo deserved a suspension, the commission members cited the attorney’s previous disciplinary record and noted that the milder punishments — including admonition, reprimand and censure — “have proven to be insufficient to protect the public from (DeMayo’s) future misconduct.”
The order added: “Entry of an order imposing less serious discipline would send the wrong message to attorneys and to the public regarding the conduct expected of members of the Bar of this state.”
Under the order, DeMayo would keep his license provided he meets a series of conditions over the next two years, including that he not violate the law or the bar’s rules of professional conduct.
Otherwise, his suspension could be activated.
This story was originally published February 21, 2023 at 3:49 PM.
