Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

2
or about July 16, 1999, an emergency custody hearing was
held in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. Afsane
Mashalian attended the hearing and denied having signed
the Waiver. She filed a Bill of Complaint seeking to invalidate
the decree of divorce.
4. By letter dated July 29, 1999, the Respondent informed his
former client, Mr. Ghasemi, that he had become aware that
Ms. Mashalian had not signed the Waiver before a Notary
Public. The Respondent noted that under Disciplinary Rule
4-101(D)(2), he, the Respondent, was obligated to reveal
to the Court any information which establishes that a client
has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal. The Respondent
requested that Mr. Ghasemi himself inform the Court of
the fraud, or he, the Respondent, would have to do so.
5. By letter dated August 10, 1999, the Respondent wrote to
Judge Stanley P. Klein, who had presided over the
Ghasemi divorce, to inform him that the Respondent’s former
client Mr. Ghasemi “had perpetrated a fraud upon the
Court in connection with the case.” The Respondent stated
that Mr. Ghasemi had admitted that Ms. Mashalian had not
signed the Waiver in front of a Notary Public. The
Respondent stated further that, “The Waiver of Service and
Notice was signed and notarized in Fairfax County on
December 24, 1998, and mailed to his office.”
6. On November 16, 1999, a hearing was held on Ms.
Mashalian’s Bill of Complaint seeking to invalidate the
divorce decree. Testimony was taken regarding the signing
and notarization of the Waiver. At that hearing, the
Respondent testified that he had instructed his client in
person and Ms. Mashalian by a cover letter attached to the
Waiver that Ms. Mashalian had to sign the Waiver in front
of a Notary Public. The Respondent testified that he first
learned that Ms. Mashalian had not signed the Waiver
before a Notary Public when he talked to counsel for Mr.
Ghasemi after the July 16, 1999 hearing. The Respondent
also testified that he spoke with Mr. Ghasemi and Mr.
Ghasemi assured him that Ms. Mashalian had signed the
Waiver, and had done so before witnesses, though not in
front of a Notary Public because of time constraints.
7. Azar M. Menhaji, an attorney admitted to practice in New
Jersey and an applicant to the Virginia State Bar, was an
administrative employee at Tate & Bywater. At the same
hearing, Ms. Menhaji testified that she notarized Ms.
Mashalian’s signature without Ms. Mashalian appearing
before her to sign the document in her presence or to
acknowledge her signature in anyway. At the conclusion
of the hearing, after the testimony of additional witnesses,
the court determined that Ms. Mashalian had signed the
Waiver, though not in front of a Notary Public, and
awarded Mr. Ghasemi $800.00 in attorney’s fees for his
defense in the matter, to be paid by Ms. Mashalian.
8. The Respondent now admits that he allowed Ms. Menhaji
to notarize Ms. Mashalian’s signature on the Waiver without
Ms. Mashalian appearing before Ms. Menhaji to sign or
acknowledge her signature. The Respondent notes that he
and Ms. Menhaji both believed the signature to be genuine.
The Respondent further admits that the statements he
made in his letter of August 10, 1999 to Judge Klein were
misleading, and that he testified falsely about the notarization
of the Waiver during the November 16, 1999, hearing.
A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 2
disciplinary actions
9. Mitigating factors recognized by the ABA include the following:
(A) The Respondent has no prior disciplinary record.
(B) At the time of events outlined above, the Respondent
had been actively engaged in the practice of law for
little more than a year. Not long after these events,
the Respondent stopped practicing law, and obtained
other non-law related employment.
(C) The Respondent has made full and free disclosures
during the course of the investigation and has exhibited
a cooperative attitude during these proceedings.
(D) The Respondent is remorseful for his behavior in this
instance and accepts full responsibility for his misconduct.
(E) The Respondent has witnesses who would testify to
his good character and reputation.
The Board finds by clear and convincing evidence that
such conduct on the part of David Bafumo, Esquire constitutes
a violation of the following Rule(s) of the Virginia Code of
Professional Responsibility:
DR 1-102. (A)(4) * * *
Upon consideration whereof, it is ORDERED that the
Respondent shall receive effective this date a two-year suspension
of his license to practice law.
* * *
Pursuant to Part Six, §IV, 13(K)(10) of the Rules of the
Supreme Court, the Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall
assess costs.
* * *
Enter this Order this 18th day of June, 2002.
VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
By: William M. Moffet, Chair
■ ■ ■
BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
In the Matter of
PAUL CORNELIUS BLAND
VSB Docket Nos.: 99-031-0907
99-031-0921
99-031-1708
00-031-2092
00-031-3456
ORDER
This matter came on April 23, 2002, to be heard on the
Agreed Disposition of the Virginia State Bar and the
Respondent, based upon the Certification of the Third District,
Section One Subcommittee. The Agreed Disposition was con