The Hearing Board ORDERS:
1. EKAETTE PATTY-ANNE EDDINGS, New York attorney registration number 4111217, is
DISBARRED from the practice of law in Colorado. The disbarment will take effect upon issuance of an
"Order and Notice of Disbarment."[20]
2. Respondent MUST promptly comply with C.R.C.P. 242.32(b)-(e), concerning winding up of affairs, notice to current clients, duties owed in litigation matters, and notice to other jurisdictions where she is licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law.
3. Within fourteen days of issuance of the "Order and Notice of Disbarment," Respondent MUST file an affidavit with the PDJ under C.R.C.P. 242.32(f), attesting to her compliance with C.R.C.P. 242.32.
4. The parties MUST file any posthearing motions no later than Tuesday, April 28, 2026. Any response thereto MUST be filed within seven days.
5. The parties MUST file any application for stay pending appeal no later than the date on which the notice of appeal is due. Any response thereto MUST be filed within seven days.
6. Respondent MUST pay the costs of this proceeding. The People MUST submit a statement of costs
no later than Tuesday, April 28, 2026. Any response challenging the reasonableness of those costs
MUST be filed within seven days thereafter.
MARY KOMINEK LINDEN HEARING BOARD MEMBER, MARK MCINTYRE HEARING BOARD
MEMBER
---------
Notes:
[1] Found in ABA Annotated Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2d ed. 2019).
[2] Sapakoff entered his appearance for the People on January 16, 2026.
[3] At approximately 9:47 a.m., after evidence in the case was closed, the PDJ's clerk notified the PDJ that Respondent had just telephoned the clerk and told him she mistakenly thought the hearing would begin at 11:00 a.m. On April 7, 2026, the PDJ denied under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) Respondent's motion to reopen the hearing, which she filed after she failed to appear.
[4] At the hearing on the sanctions, the People's investigator, Scherer, testified that Mondesir submitted a request for investigation with the People regarding Respondent's representation of Mondesir and his spouse.
[5] Compl. ¶ 33 ([sic] throughout). During her testimony, Scherer clarified that Mondesir signed his affidavit supporting his request for investigation on April 14, 2025, but that he submitted the request for investigation on an earlier date.
[6] In re Kleinsmlth, 2017 CO 101, ¶ 14 (citing People v Varallo, 913 P.2d 1, 10-11 (Colo. 1996)).
8
[7] See In re Roose, 69 P.3d 43, 46-47 (Colo. 2003).
[8] See People v. Silvola, 915 P.2d 1281, 1284 (Colo. 1996) (deeming a lawyer's repeated misconduct over an extended period to be willful).
[9] See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.103(a)(1), (4) (providing that the Board of Immigration Appeals must immediately suspend from federal immigration practice any lawyer whom a state high court has suspended on an interim basis pending a final resolution of the underlying disciplinary matter).
[10] ABA Annotated Standards Preface at xx.
[11] See ABA Standards 9.21 and 9.31.
[12] See Ex. S1 at 361 -64. Respondent was reinstated in New York on April 10, 2018. Ex. S1 at 361. Under the PDJ's determination under C.R.E. 201, we take judicial notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals reinstated Respondent on August 24, 2018.
[13] In the unsworn declaration Respondent filed with her prehearing materials, she asserts that she has practiced law for forty years in jurisdictions on three different continents. We do not treat Respondent's statement as evidence, and she has not sought to introduce exhibits or testimony showing her licensure in other jurisdictions. Even so, we note that any additional time as a licensed lawyer beyond our findings would merely underscore our decision to apply this factor.
[14] C.R.C.P. 242.30(b)(3).
[15] Addressed, respectively, in ABA Standards 9.32(a), 9.32(b), 9.32(c), and 9.32(m).
[16] In re Att'y F., 2012 CO 57 ¶ 20 {quoting In re Rosen, 198 P.3d 116, 121 (Colo. 2008)).
[17] Id. ¶ 3.
[18] Compare People v. Varallo, 913 P.2d at 10-11 (Colo. 1996) (concluding that a lawyer's absence of prior discipline and evidence of good character did not overcome the presumption of disbarment when the lawyer knowingly used his client's funds for his personal benefit), with People v. Lujan, 890 P.2d 109, 110 (Colo. 1995) (suspending rather than disbarring a lawyer who knowingly converted client funds, where
"extraordinary and tragic factors" applied in mitigation, including the emergence of a mental disorder that caused the misconduct); see also Kleinsmith, ¶ 14 (reaffirming disbarment as the condign sanction for knowing conversion and citing People v. Lavenhar, 934 P.2d 1355, 1358-59 (Colo. 1997)).
[19] See, e.g., People v. Caldbeck, 466 P.3d 1174, 1178-79 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2020) (in a default proceeding, disbarring a Pennsylvania-licensed lawyer who failed to pursue his clients' immigration matters and converted their unearned fees); People v. Topper 470 P.3d 821, 823-24, 826 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2016) (in a default proceeding, disbarring a lawyer whose misconduct included accepting retainers from two clients, performing little to no work on their cases, failing to return the clients' unearned fees, and failing to respond to one client's attempts to contact the lawyer); People v. Heaphy, 470 P.3d 728, 731 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2015) (disbarring a lawyer for knowingly converting settlement funds belonging to his client and for failing to respond to the client's communications, among other misconduct).
[20] In general, an order and notice of sanction will issue thirty-five days after a decision is entered under C.R.C.P. 242.31(a)(6). In some instances, the order and notice may issue later than the thirty-five days by operation of C.R.C.P. 242.35, C.R.C.P. 59, or other applicable rules.
---------
9