KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CYNTHIA ANN MANDELLO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
2000-SC-0857-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
v.
IN SUPREME COURT
CYNTHIA ANN MANDELLO
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Inquiry Tribunal charged Respondent, Cynthia Ann Mandello, with eight
counts of misconduct. Two of these counts have been settled or resolved in separate
proceedings. The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association held a hearing
on the remaining charges. The Board found Mandello guilty of two of these counts and
not guilty of the other four. The Board recommended a suspension of six (6) months to
run consecutively with a previous eighteen months of suspension. See Kentuckv Bar
Association v. Mandello, KY., 986 S.W.2d 897 (1999). We adopt the Board’s findings
and recommendation as our own.
These charges stem from.Mandello’s representation of Carolyn Williams in
connection with the death of her husband, George Williams, at the University of
Kentucky Medical Center. Mandello became aware of George Williams’ death and
some of the surrounding circumstances during a social encounter with nurses from the
University of Kentucky Medical Center. These nurses allegedly described the events
leading to Mr. Williams’ death in such a way that Mandello became convinced that he
died as the result of gross negligence. Based on this knowledge and belief, Mandello
sent Mrs. Williams the following letter:
October 27, 1989
Dear Ms. Williams,
I sincerely regret the necessity for this letter and it is only due to my
strong feelings of fairness that I would write to you at this time. Over the
past weekend, through friends, I learned of the circumstances surrounding
your husbands (sic) death and I feel a moral responsibility to suggest that
you retain an attorney to investigate it.
I realize that your first thought will be that I am an ambulance
chaser. I assure you that I am not, nor have I ever had a need to solicite
(sic) business in such a manner. This knowledge that I have concerning
your husbands (sic) death has preyed on my mind since learning of it, and
in order to alleviate any doubts that you may have concerning my
intentions, I can only say that I will cooperate fully with any attorney that
you may already have or that you ultimately retain. While I would like to
represent you and feel that my background provides me with a strong
basis of knowledge with which to protect your interests, I must say that in
this particular situation, it is not who you choose to represent you, but that
you choose someone. It was purely coincidental that I learned of this
occurance (sic). My being an attorney had nothing to do with how I
discovered it.
Carolyn, I am a strong Christian. I believe that God has reasons
for everything and if it is in his perfect plan that I represent you, then he
will provide the means. If someone else is to represent you, then he will
insure that my information reaches that person. I truely (sic) believe this
and will willingly speak to anyone you choose.
I do not know how to adequately discuss what I learned without
causing you additional pain. Please ask someone you trust to call me and
I will relate the information, how I learned of it, and what I feel you should
legally do.
-2-
I
i
I know that this is a difficult time for you and again, I regret any
additional pain that I may have unwittingly caused. I remain,
Sincerely,
Cynthia A. Mandello
Attorney at Law
Mrs. Williams was not a current or former client of Mandello’s, nor had the two
ever met prior to this letter being sent. After dismissing the first attorney she hired to
represent her, Mrs. Williams hired Mandello to represent her in a medical malpractice
action against the University of Kentucky Medical Center in connection with her
husband’s death.
Mandello was found not guilty on Counts II, IV, VI and VII. Further, Counts V
and VII have either been settled or resolved. The remaining two counts -- those upon
which Mandello was found guilty -- are discussed immediately below.
COUNT I
The Inquiry Tribunal charged Mandello with violation of former rule SCR
3.135(6)(a), which was in effect at the time Mandello sent the above letter. That rule
provided in pertinent part, “that a fair and accurate representation of any advertisement
that does not qualify under Rule 3.135(6)(a) shall be delivered to the Attorneys
Advertising Commission in care of the Director no fewer than 30 days before such
advertisement is used .“I The basis of this charge is: (1) Mandello failed to deliver a
copy of the above letter to the Attorneys Advertising Commission thirty (30) days before
she sent it to Mrs. Williams; and (2) Williams was not a current or former client at the
‘The Supreme Court Rules concerning attorney advertising are currently located
at SCR 7.1 et seq.
-3-
time the letter was sent. The Board of Governors found Mandello guilty of this charge
by a unanimous vote. Implicit in this conclusion is the finding that Mandello’s letter to
Mrs. Williams dated October 27, 1989, constituted a letter soliciting business. We
agree with this finding and specifically hold that the letter was and is an advertisement
within the meaning of the applicable Supreme Court Rules.
COUNT III
The Inquiry Tribunal charged Mandello with violation of former rule SCR
3.135(4), which was in effect at the time Mandello sent the above letter. That rule
provided that an attorney could not “use or participate in the use of any form of
advertising containing a statement or claim which is false or tends to be misleading,
deceptive or unfair or which is self-laudatory.” The Board of Governors gives no
written basis for finding Mandello guilty of this rule. Nonetheless, it found her guilty by a
voteof15tol.
We note the following: Mandello acknowledges in her response to the Trial
Commissioner’s Findings of Fact that the following statement from the letter is selflaudatory: ‘I. . . I would like to represent you and feel that my background provides me
with a strona basis of knowledge with which to protect your interests . . . .‘I (Emphasis
added). Further, the statement is at the very least misleading in light of the following
facts: (1) Mandello only had been engaged in the practice of law for two years prior to
sending the letter; and (2) Mandello had never before handled a medical malpractice
case. Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the Board of Governors.
Upon the foregoing facts and charges, it is ordered that:
1. Respondent, Cynthia Ann Mandello, is hereby suspended from the practice of
law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of six (6) months, to run
4
consecutively with any and all current suspensions. The period of suspension shall
continue until such time as Mandello is reinstated to the practice of law pursuant to
SCR 3.510, or any controlling amendment to SCR 3.510.
2. In accordance with SCR 3.450 and SCR 3.480(3), Mandello is directed to pay
all costs associated with this disciplinary proceeding against her, said sum being
!§2,516.55.
Upon the finality of this opinion, an order of execution may issue from this
Court for said costs.
All concur.
Entered: December 21, 2000.
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
