Mayo & Mayo-Mayo Michael C Review

Valerie Jean and Michael Charles Mayo Repeatedly Violated Virginia State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct | Prior to Sept 2007, when the Mayos learned that attorney Jan C. Smith represented me, as Westmoreland County Commissioner of Accounts, Michael Mayo had already reviewed–and rejected–Smith’s First and Second Accountings for his mother-in-law Trepagnier’s will, and Valerie Mayo notarized Smith’s Affidavit of Notice Regarding her estate on September 27, 2007. By not reporting this conflict of interest to me, my former lawyer (before Smith), or the court, the Mayos intentionally acted in violation of Virginia State Bar (VSB) Rule 1.7 “CONFLICT OF INTEREST and VSB Rule 1.6(c)(3) CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION (c) A lawyer shall promptly reveal: (3) information concerning the misconduct of another attorney to the appropriate professional authority under Rule 8.3. When the information necessary to report the misconduct is protected under this Rule, the attorney, after consultation, must obtain client consent. Consultation should include full disclosure of all reasonably foreseeable consequences of both disclosure and non-disclosure to the client,” and VSB Rule 8.3 “REPORTING MISCONDUCT (a) A lawyer having reliable information that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules if Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law shall inform the appropriate professional authority.” | With full knowledge of Smith’s conflict of interest, by failing to disclose it to another attorney representing me or the Northumberland CVSB ounty General District Court, Michael Mayo, in his capacity as Westmoreland County Commissioner of Accounts violated VSB Rule 1.11(a)(3) “SPECIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR FORMER AND CURRENT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES (a) A lawyer who holds public office shall not: (3) accept anything of value from any person when the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the offer is for the purpose of influencing the lawyer’s action as a public official.” Mayo’s violation is corroborated by the fact that immediately after the period passed foR me to file an appeal, he approved Smith’s Second Accounting on January 12, 2008–which was identical to the one he had refused to approve earlier! | In Oct 2007, Valeria Mayo and Jane B. Wrightson intentionally failed to enter in court my lawyer’s nonsuit of a Quiet Title Motion per his request. By their actions, they conspired to deceive the Northumberland County General District Court in violation of VSB Rule 3.4(a) “FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL. A lawyer shall not: (j) conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behallf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.” Then, they called former lawyer, Jan C. Smith, with whom they had conspired, as a witness in court against me, in violation of VSB Rule 3.7 LAWYER AS WITNESS and Rule 3.3(a) CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact to a tribunal.” By acting together, did they commit Conspiracy, Abuse of Process, and did violated Due Process? | In Nov 2007, by absenting himself from the courtroom, and thereby failing to inform the Court of Smith’s conflict of interest, Michael Mayo violated VSB Rule 3.3(a)(3) ‘CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority in the subject jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; (d) A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that a person other than a client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.” In full knowledge of Smith’s conflict of interest and that I paid him a retainer, Michael Mayo was aware of and contributed to Smith’s fraud and did not report it to the court. | Under NO circumstances should anyone EVER have ANYTHING to do with the Mayos, who are corrupt lawyers and civil servants.

—–

  • Name: Mayo & Mayo-Mayo Michael C
  • Country: United States
  • State: Virginia
  • City: Colonial Beach
  • Address: 409 Meadow Ave
  • Phone: 804-224-0131
  • Website:
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on MeraReview.com, it is strongly advised to avoid Mayo & Mayo-Mayo Michael C Review in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Mayo & Mayo-Mayo Michael C Review. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike MeraReview.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Mayo & Mayo-Mayo Michael C Review is rated 1 out of 5 based on the complaints submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
The above complaints and comments against Mayo & Mayo-Mayo Michael C Review were submitted by MeraReview.com user(s) and have been published as-is. MeraReview.com does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their reviews and MeraReview.com will NOT entertain any request to remove the review on Mayo & Mayo-Mayo Michael C Review at any cost whatsoever.
>