Armando Javier Mendez was admitted to the California Bar 7th December 1988, but has since been disbarred. Armando graduated from UC Berkeley SOL Boalt Hall.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Armando Javier Mendez |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 7 December 1988 (35 years, 5 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 138799 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | (209) 522-5352 |
| Fax Number | (209) 573-2855 |
Schools
| Law School | UC Berkeley SOL Boalt Hall (Berkeley CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Harvard University (Cambridge MA) |
Address
| Current Address | 418 13th St #C Modesto, CA 95354 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 11 October 2003 | Disbarred (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 1 June 2002 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (21 years, 11 months ago) |
| 21 October 1991 | Active (32 years, 6 months ago) |
| 12 August 1991 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (32 years, 8 months ago) |
| 7 December 1988 | Admitted to The State Bar of California (35 years, 5 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
October 11, 2003 ARMANDO JAVIER MENDEZ [#138799], 40, of Modesto was disbarred Oct. 11, 2003. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Mendez committed 42 acts of misconduct in eight consolidated matters. In all eight, he failed to promptly refund unearned fees, keep clients informed about developments in their cases or cooperate with the bar's investigation. In seven of the cases, he failed to perform legal services competently or take steps to avoid prejudice to his clients' rights. As a result of his actions, two clients were deported and a third was deported in absentia. Judge Joann Remke found that Mendez "habitually disregarded his clients' interests" by accepting employment and advance legal fees and then failing to provide competent legal services. He closed his office without notifying his clients and in two cases misappropriated the advance costs. Mendez also was disciplined in March 2003 for similar misconduct in two client cases and Remke found that his actions extended over two and a half years. There was no mitigation.April 2, 2003 ARMANDO JAVIER MENDEZ [#138799], 40, of Modesto was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 90 days and until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect April 2, 2003. The State Bar Court found that Mendez committed misconduct in two matters. In an immigration case, the court denied two motions for a change of venue and warned Mendez that his client would be deported if she failed to appear at a hearing. Prior to the denial of the second motion, Mendez' secretary told the client the request for a change of venue would be granted and she would not need to attend the hearing. When Mendez learned the motion was denied, he asked the court if he could appear telephonically. The court said no, and neither Mendez nor the client appeared at the hearing and the client was ordered deported. Mendez filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, accepting responsibility for his client's failure to appear. The motion was denied. Mendez did not return numerous phone calls. The client ultimately hired new counsel who succeeded in reopening the proceedings by arguing that Mendez provided ineffective counsel. In a second matter, Mendez represented a client who was trying to obtain legal residency in the U.S. When the client's wife could not get a status update of her husband's matter, she contacted her congressman, who learned that no papers had been filed on his behalf. Mendez became upset that the client's wife went to her congressman and said he no longer wanted to represent the client. He did not refund any fees or return photographs the client had provided. Eventually, the wife prepared and filed the necessary documents herself. The bar court found that Mendez failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, refund unearned fees or return clients' files and that he also withdrew from employment without taking steps to avoid prejudice to his client and committed an act of moral turpitude. He also did not cooperate with the bar's investigation. In mitigation, he practiced law for more than 10 years without any discipline. |