preview

Menezes V. Bloomenthal Case Study

Better Essays

COMPLAINT On August 2, 2016, the Office of the Bar Counsel received a complaint from Edilson Menezes regarding Attorney Sandra F. Bloomenthal. Menezes’ complaint alleged that he hired Bloomenthal to appeal his criminal conviction; however she failed to take the necessary steps to file an appeal, communicate with her now former client, and return a copy of his file or give any type of refund. Bloomenthal has potentially violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. FACTS On May 2, 2014, Edilson Menezes retained Sandra Bloomenthal “in connection with: post conviction relief of conviction SUCR2010-10275 Suffolk Superior Court.” As part of the “Fixed Fee Agreement,” Menezes paid a total of $10,000 to Bloomenthal to begin work on his appeal. …show more content…

It should be noted that two years after Menezes agreed to plea, Espinosa was disbarred, in an unrelated matter; Espinosa was found to have violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)&(b) and 8.4(c). Bloomenthal points out in her Motion to Vacate Conviction Pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 30 that Espinosa failed to file a motion to suppress in reference to Menezes’ confession, as there was no interpreter present and Menezes made statements that indicated possible mental health issues. It appears that shortly after Bloomental filed the Rule 30 Motion on April 13, 2015, the motion was denied. Bloomenthal subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal on April 30, 2015; however it appears that the appeal was never actually

Get Access