BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
- Melvin Bryan
- 2 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 734, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : Supreme Court : : No. 52 DB 2002 Disciplinary Board v. : : Attorney Registration No MARC M. SCOLA : Respondent : (Out of State) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA: Pursuant to Rule 208(d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ( Board ) herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with respect to the above-captioned Petition for Discipline. I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS By Order dated April 19, 2002, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania placed Respondent, Marc M. Scola, on temporary suspension based on his criminal conviction of theft by deception and tampering with witnesses and informants.
2 On May 6, 2002, Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a Petition for Discipline charging Respondent with violation of Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(1), RPC 8.4(b), and RPC 8.4(c). Respondent did not file an Answer. Prior to the pre-hearing conference, Respondent entered into Joint Stipulations of Law and Fact in which he admitted all of the allegations set forth in the Petition for Discipline. A pre-hearing conference was held on September 27, Respondent did not attend. A disciplinary hearing was held on October 15, 2002, before Hearing Committee 1.22 comprised of Chair Shelley Roxanne Smith, Esquire, and Members Michael David Schaff, Esquire, and Warren Elliot Kampf, Esquire. Respondent did not attend the disciplinary hearing. Respondent be Disbarred. The Committee filed a Report on February 24, 2003 and recommended that 14, This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting of May II. FINDINGS OF FACT The Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, whose principal office is situated at Suite 1400, 200 North Third Street, Harrisburg PA 17101, is invested, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 207, with the power 2
3 and duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions of the aforesaid Rules. 2. Respondent was born in 1966 and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in His last registered office address for the practice of law was 61 Mallard Drive, P.O. Box 282, Allamuchy, NJ His current residential address is P.O. Box 254, Mt. Olive, NJ Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court. 3. On July 9, 2001, Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of third degree theft by deception in violation of N.J.S. 2C:20-4/2-6 and one count of third degree tampering with witnesses and informants in violation of N.J.S. 2C:20-5(a)(1). State of New Jersey v. Marc Scola, New Jersey Superior Court Law Division - Criminal, Morris County, IND/ACC No S. 4. On December 7, 2001, the Honorable B. Theodore Bozonelis sentenced Respondent to two years probation on each count to run concurrently and ordered him to make restitution to First Union National Bank in the amount of $19, By Order dated April 19, 2002, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 214(d)(1), placed Respondent on temporary suspension and referred his criminal conviction matter to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 214(f)(1). 3
4 6. Other than his current temporary suspension, Respondent has no record of discipline in Pennsylvania. September 27, Respondent did not attend the pre-hearing conference held on 8. At the pre-hearing conference, the Designated Member in charge directed Disciplinary Counsel to communicate with Respondent the rulings made at the conference. 9. By letter of September 27, 2002, Disciplinary Counsel advised Respondent of the rulings made, including that Respondent was required to advise Office of Disciplinary Counsel whether he was going to appear at the disciplinary hearing scheduled for October 15, Upon receipt of the correspondence from Disciplinary Counsel, Respondent hand wrote I will not attend on the letter, signed it and returned it to Disciplinary Counsel on October 3, Respondent did not attend the disciplinary hearing held on October 15, 4
5 III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By his conduct as set forth above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement: 1. RPC 8.4(b) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. 2. RPC 8.4(c ) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. 3. Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(1) Respondent s conviction for theft by deception and tampering with witnesses and informants constitutes a conviction of a serious crime and is an independent basis for discipline. IV. DISCUSSION This matter is before the Disciplinary Board upon a Petition for Discipline charging Respondent with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement based on his conviction of one count of theft by deception and one count of tampering with witnesses and informants. 5
6 When a disciplinary proceeding is commenced against an attorney based on a criminal conviction, the Board s sole responsibility is to determine the appropriate measure of discipline relative to the seriousness of the crime. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Eilberg, 441 A.2d 1193 (Pa. 1982). All aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration in the Board s final analysis of discipline. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lucarini, 472 A.2d 186 (Pa. 1983). According to Count Two of the Indictment, Respondent purposely did obtain property of another in excess of $500 by deception [by] purposely caus[ing] [eight] checks in the total amount of approximately $40,125 drawn on the checking account of Pell Enterprises at First Union National Bank, to be paid, creating and reinforcing the false impression that the Pell Enterprises account was sufficiently funded [with knowledge that] the account was insufficiently funded (Ex.D). According to Count Three of the Indictment, Respondent, believing that an investigation was pending or about to be instituted knowingly attempted to induce and otherwise cause an individual to testify and inform falsely that he possessed no relevant information about specific checks drawn on the Pell Enterprises account for which there were insufficient funds (Ex.D). In sentencing Respondent, New Jersey Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis described Respondent s crimes as follows: Defendant is an attorney who was involved in [a] check cashing scheme with his law partner, Scott Walterscheid, and 6
7 attempted to persuade a codefendant to blame a 3 rd party and deny knowledge of [the]scheme. (Ex. B) There is no question that Respondent's crimes constitute egregious professional misconduct warranting serious discipline. In the matter of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Valentino, 730 A.2d 479 (Pa. 1999), the Supreme Court imposed a five year suspension on an attorney who had been convicted of one count of mail fraud and who suborned the false testimony of his mother before a grand jury. Respondent's crimes are similar to those of Mr. Valentino. Both attorneys committed crimes that defrauded others of property. While Mr. Valentino engaged in mail fraud, Respondent engaged in theft by deception. Both attorneys advised witnesses to testify falsely in connection with a criminal investigation into their activities. Mr. Valentino was not disbarred due to the existence of a number of mitigating factors. Mr. Valentino cooperated with federal prosecutors and brought his malfeasance in regard to the subornation of perjury to the attention of the court. Additionally, Mr. Valentino had no prior record of discipline and presented substantial evidence of good character at the disciplinary hearing. In the instant matter, the only mitigating factor present is Respondent's lack of prior record. There is no evidence that Respondent cooperated with New Jersey authorities, nor was any evidence of good character introduced at the hearing. 7
8 Respondent's misconduct is worthy of disbarment. Pertinent to this recommendation is Respondent's failure to appear for the disciplinary hearing. This is a significant aggravating circumstance demonstrating Respondent's lack of interest in retaining his law license and a lack of regard for the disciplinary system. His failure to attend his own hearing leaves unresolved questions as to Respondent's remorse and acceptance of responsibility. Respondent is not fit to practice law in Pennsylvania. The Board recommends that Respondent be Disbarred. 8
9 V. RECOMMENDATION The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously recommends that the Respondent, Marc M. Scola, be Disbarred from the practice of law in this Commonwealth. It is further recommended that the expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter are to be paid by the Respondent. Respectfully submitted, THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Date: August 21, 2003 By: Lisa A. Watkins, Member Board Member Sheerer did not participate in the May 14, 2003 adjudication. 9
10 PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 14 th day of November, 2003, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated August 21, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that MARC M. SCOLA be and he is DISBARRED from the Bar of this Commonwealth, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E. 10
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 399, Disciplinary Docket Petitioner : No. 3 Supreme Court : v. : No. 30 DB 1998 Disciplinary Board
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary. Board dated August 9, 2012, and following oral argument, it is hereby
[J-8-2013] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. GLORI ALISHA KASNER, Respondent No. 1729 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 51 DB 2011 Attorney Registration No.
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 891 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 79 DB 2002 v. : : Attorney Registration No. 60044
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 376, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : Supreme Court : v. : No. 87 DB 2001 Disciplinary Board
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 499, Disciplinary Docket Petitioner : No. 3 - Supreme Court : : No. 51 DB 1999 : Disciplinary Board
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : :
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of DAVID E. SHAPIRO PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 691, Disciplinary Docket No. 2 Supreme Court No. 74 DB 1989 - Disciplinary
September 26, 2013, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. MARC D. MANOFF, Respondent No. 1701 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 10 DB 2011 Attorney Registration No. 53927 (Chester
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : :
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of JOSEPH ROBERT RYDZEWSKI PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 287, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Supreme Court Nos. 158 DB 1996
10, 2012, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby granted
IN THE.SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. LOUANN G. PETRUCCI, No. 1754 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 115 DB 2011 Attorney Registration No. 52960 ORDER PER CURIAM:
Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated October 7, 2013, the Petition for
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of ANTHONY L. CIANFRANI PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 1335 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 164 DB 2007 Attorney Registration No. 45866 (Philadelphia) ORDER
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 11-B-1631 IN RE: MAZEN YOUNES ABDALLAH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
10/14/2011 "See News Release 066 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 11-B-1631 IN RE: MAZEN YOUNES ABDALLAH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER. and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated May 19, 2014, it is hereby
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. JEFF FOREMAN, Respondent No. 1543 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 164 DB 2009 Attorney Registration No. 72657 (Dauphin County)
SYLLABUS. In the Matter of Philip V. Toronto, an Attorney at Law (D-95-96)
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
2012 WI 48 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aaron J. Rollins, Attorney at Law:
2012 WI 48 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2011AP778-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aaron J. Rollins, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
Attorneys convicted of crimes.
Rule 214. Attorneys convicted of crimes. (a) An attorney convicted of a [serious] crime shall report the fact of such conviction within 20 days to the [Secretary of the Board] Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated April 11,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT, Respondent No. 1937 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 37 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 44985 (Bucks
No. 37 DB 2012 ORDER. AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. MICHAEL ZACHARY MAN DALE, Respondent No. 1927 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 37 DB 2012 Attorney Registration No. 200124
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 123 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas E. Bielinski, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Thomas
RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA December 1, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULES
People v. J. Bryan Larson. 13PDJ031. October 18, 2013.
People v. J. Bryan Larson. 13PDJ031. October 18, 2013. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred J. Bryan Larson (Attorney Registration Number 31822). The disbarment took
William Austin Watkins, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. WILLIAM AUSTIN WATKINS Respondent No. 99 DB 2012 Attorney Registration No. 52407 (Monroe
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : :
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of DAVID J. HIRSCH PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 134 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Supreme Court No. 90 DB 1995 - Disciplinary
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 122 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Naomi E. Soldon, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Naomi E.
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 1067, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 25 DB 2003 v. : : Attorney Registration No. 27148
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : :
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of CHARLES ELLIS STEELE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 311, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Supreme Court No. 34 DB 1997 - Disciplinary
: No. 52 DB 2003. : Attorney Registration No. 36621 ORDER
\IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of : No. 1021 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 PAUL R. GIBA : No. 52 DB 2003 : Attorney Registration No. 36621 PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT : (Allegheny County)
: No. 156 DB 2004. Attorney Registration No_ 82049 ORDER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of : No. 971 Disciplinary Docket No_ 3 RHONDA McCULLOLIGH ANDERSON : : No. 156 DB 2004 Attorney Registration No_ 82049 PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT : (Philadelphia)
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS A. PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS A. PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS 1.1 Purpose of Lawyer Discipline Proceedings The purpose of lawyer
: (Allegheny County) ORDER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1630 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : No. 97 DB 2010 V. : Attorney Registration No. 48848 JAMES LAWRENCE PAZ, Respondent
In the Indiana Supreme Court
NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary John P. Higgins, Staff Attorney Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE MATTER
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
2005 WI 102 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2005AP838-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joseph Engl, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2014 WI 2 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steven T. Berman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Steven T.
STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES. Case Nos.: 13-O-15838-DFM ) ) ) ) ) ) )
FILED MARCH 16, 2015 STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES In the Matter of ANDREW MacLAREN STEWART, Member No. 204170, A Member of the State Bar. Case Nos.: 13-O-15838-DFM DECISION
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 17 DB 2001 Petitioner : : v. : Attorney Registration No. 44775 : FRED JOSEPH LAGATTUTA, : Respondent
SYLLABUS. In the Matter of Joseph T. Margrabia, Jr., An Attorney at Law (D-111-96)
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, Respondent Nos. 1328 and 1792 Disciplinary Docket No.3 Nos. 171 DB 2007, 169 DB 2008 and 187 DB
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2742 IN RE: THOMAS WAHLDER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2742 IN RE: THOMAS WAHLDER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises from one count of formal charges instituted by
Donald P. Russo, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. No. 111 DB 2015 Attorney Registration No. 25873 DONALD P. RUSSO Respondent (Northampton County)
NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
03/15/02 See News Release 020 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
SEATTLE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AMERICAN INN OF COURT ETHICS MAY 21, 2015
SEATTLE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AMERICAN INN OF COURT ETHICS MAY 21, 2015 INTRODUCTION JONATHAN MCFARLAND 2 IN RE REINES - CASE OVERVIEW CHRISTIE MATTHAEI 3 APPLICABLE RULES THERESA WANG 4 APPLICABLE FEDERAL
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-B-2701 IN RE: MARK LANE JAMES, II ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
03/01/2013 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-B-2701 IN RE: MARK LANE JAMES, II ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-1923 IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
11/01/2013 "See News Release 062 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-1923 IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices.
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices. ---------------------------------------x
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : :
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of MARLENE EVELYN JOSEPH PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT : : : : : : : : No. 961, Disciplinary Docket No. 2 Supreme Court Nos.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. /rxy. OVERVIEW
^kzm BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO In re: /rxy. f, Uy ^.. 4 ^ ^ Complaint against Case No. 2013 070 Anthony Orlando Calabrese III Attorney
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : :
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of PATRICK M. CASEY PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT Nos. 730 & 872, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Supreme Court Nos. 62 DB 2002 &
September 3, 2013, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. JEFFREY AARON BLAKER, Respondent No. 1968 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 107 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 309496 (Philadelphia)
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 20 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joan M. Boyd,
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 38 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2014AP2906-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jon Evenson, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v.
December 10, 2013. Paula Frederick General Counsel State Bar of Georgia 104 Marietta Street, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30303 PaulaF@gabar.
December 10, 2013 College of Law Clark D. Cunningham W. Lee Burge Professor of Law & Ethics P.O. Box 4037 Atlanta, GA 30302-4037 404-413-9168 fax: 404-413-9225 cdcunningham@gsu.edu Home page: http://law.gsu.edu/ccunningham/
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 714, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : Supreme Court : v. : No. 8 DB 2002 Disciplinary Board
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : :
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of DEAN IAN WEITZMAN PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 563, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 - Supreme Court No. 24 DB 2000 - Disciplinary
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652.]
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652.] AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITHERN. [Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652.] Attorneys at law Multiple
The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense
The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err
MERCER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION XTREME CLE. 2.0 NJ CLE Credits. Charles Centinaro, Esq., Director of Attorney Ethics
MERCER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION XTREME CLE COURSE TITLE: LOCATION: Ethics with Charles Centinaro 2.0 NJ CLE Credits The Conference Center at MCCC DATE: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 TIME: SPEAKERS: 8:00 am
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : (Philadelphia)
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of ROBERT C. JACOBS PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 752 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Nos. 68 DB 2002 & 88 DB 2003 Attorney Registration
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson, 139 Ohio St.3d 452, 2014-Ohio-2482.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson, 139 Ohio St.3d 452, 2014-Ohio-2482.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. THOMPSON. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson, 139 Ohio St.3d 452, 2014-Ohio-2482.] Attorneys
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP PLEA AGREEMENT
Case 8:15-cr-00244-SDM-AEP Document 3 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL FOR STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 08-2 STATE BAR OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT. Parties and Appearance
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL FOR STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 08-2 STATE BAR OF TEXAS 11 Austin Office COMMISSION FOR LAWYER * DISCIPLINE, * Petitioner * * 201400539 v. * * CHARLES J. SEBESTA, JR., * Respondent
(l) IN THE MATTER OF $ ROBERT EUGENE EASLEY $ CAUSE NO. 4677s srate BAR CARD NO. 24036514 $ DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT
BEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF $ ROBERT EUGENE EASLEY $ CAUSE NO. 4677s srate BAR CARD NO. 24036514 $ DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT On
NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
05/23/2014 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Supreme
O R D E R. Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. On December 17, 2013, the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court In the Matter of Daniel J. Saxton. No. 2014-64-M.P. O R D E R This disciplinary matter is before us pursuant to Article III, Rule 6(d) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION
People v. Garrow, No. 00PDJ068, 9.25.01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board suspended the Respondent, William F. Garrow, from the practice of law for a period of one
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 36 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joseph M. Engl, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joseph M.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs, 140 Ohio St.3d 2, 2014-Ohio-2137.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs, 140 Ohio St.3d 2, 2014-Ohio-2137.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JACOBS. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs, 140 Ohio St.3d 2, 2014-Ohio-2137.] Attorneys Misconduct
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT. AlS-0567 ORDER. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT AlS-0567 OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS AUG 19 2015 FILED In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Todd Allen Duckson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 219125.
Case5:09-cr-00928-JF Document64 Filed05/13/10 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cr-00-JF Document Filed0//0 Page of 0 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN Chief, Criminal Division JEFFREY B. SCHENK (CSBN Assistant United States Attorney
FILED November 9, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2007 Term No. 33067 LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner FILED November 9, 2007 released at 10:00 a.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, Supreme Court Case No. SC14-872 TFB File Nos. v. 2014-10,348 (12A) 2014-10,420 (12A) PAUL ANTHONY PYSCZYNSKI, 2014-10,658
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #031 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Per Curiams handed down on the 27th day of May, 2016, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2016-B
BRYCE A. FETTER ORLANDO JUVENILE CHARGES ATTORNEY
BRYCE A. FETTER ORLANDO JUVENILE CHARGES ATTORNEY People make mistakes, especially young people. Juvenile lawyer Bryce Fetter believes children should get a second chance through rehabilitation rather
IN RE: STEPHEN L. TUNNEY NO. BD-2011-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on January 10, 2012. 1
IN RE: STEPHEN L. TUNNEY NO. BD-2011-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on January 10, 2012. 1 Page Down to View Memorandum of Decision 2008: The Year in Ethics and Bar Discipline
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, 139 Ohio St.3d 411, 2014-Ohio-1908.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, 139 Ohio St.3d 411, 2014-Ohio-1908.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MECKLENBORG. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, 139 Ohio St.3d 411, 2014-Ohio-1908.]
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS Definitions Adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000) AInjury@ is harm to
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF OREGON for the DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES INSURANCE DIVISION ) ) ) ) )
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF OREGON for the DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES INSURANCE DIVISION In the Matter of CHERIE G. SMITH and BEST INSURANCE CONSULTANTS, LLC
2009 WI 92 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against P. Nicholas Hurtgen, Attorney at Law:
2009 WI 92 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against P. Nicholas Hurtgen, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. P. Nicholas
People v. Peter D. Nitschke. 14PDJ067. May 13, 2015.
People v. Peter D. Nitschke. 14PDJ067. May 13, 2015. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Peter D. Nitschke (Attorney Registration Number 34313). The disbarment took
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL A FINDINGS AND ORDER
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL A IN RE: DONALD W. COLSON ARKANSAS BAR ID No. 2005166 CPC Docket No. 2013-008 FINDINGS AND ORDER Donald W. Colson is an attorney licensed
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-2073 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Calabrese, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2073.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal
Committee on Judicial Ethics Teleconference Thursday, January 15, 2015
Committee on Judicial Ethics Teleconference Thursday, January 15, 2015 Members present via teleconference: Judge Christine E. Keller, Chair, Judge Barbara M. Quinn, Professor Sarah F. Russell, Judge Angela
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NORMAN MATHIS Appellant No. 1368 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
~ DJ.jC D N J TH CAROLINA STATE BAR,~\ ~ 09 DHC 5
-tiw~~ "'~ "" NORTH CAROLIN i;;" of. ~ BEFORE THE WAKE COUNTY 1:::::, c! P 201.@IS~'L1NARY HEARING COMMISSION ~ v~ji..s,=-= OF THE ~ DJ.jC D N J TH CAROLINA STATE BAR,~\ ~ 09 DHC 5 >?1/ 11 /?,., l C\ c:,,;/,
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 143 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4598.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 143 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4598.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARMON. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 143 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4598.] Attorneys at law
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of. This matter came before us on a certification of default
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 11-221 District Docket No. IV-2010-489E IN THE MATTER OF DUNCAN GORDON CAMERON AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Decided: November 30, 2011
rrm CURIAM. No- 76,451 vs. nrticle V, section 15, Florida Constitution. For the reasons that disbarment is appropriate- THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
0 1 No- 76,451 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. \JC)FIN ROBERT FORBES, Respondent. [April. 9, 19921 rrm CURIAM. This is a disciplinary proceeding in which John Robert T7f)r1ws pel-itions this Court to
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandra Lynn Reno, Misc. Docket AG No. 5, September Term, 2013
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandra Lynn Reno, Misc. Docket AG No. 5, September Term, 2013 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE MARYLAND LAWYERS RULE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 8.4 Court of Appeals denied
11/20/2009 "See News Release 073 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-1795 IN RE: DEBORAH HARKINS BAER
11/20/2009 "See News Release 073 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-1795 IN RE: DEBORAH HARKINS BAER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Madden (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 238.] (No. 99-2234 Submitted March 8, 2000 Decided June 21, 2000.)
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Madden, 89 Ohio St.3d 238, 2000-Ohio-146.] OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MADDEN. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Madden (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 238.] Attorneys at law
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Summary of Opinion. People v. Brock, No. 00PDJ091, 4/19/01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge reinstated Kenneth F. Brock, attorney registration number 25972 to the practice of law
2008 WI 91 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law:
2008 WI 91 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. R. L. McNeely,
IN RE: MAUREEN STRETCH NO. BD-2012-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on October 2, 2012. 1 SUMMARY 2
IN RE: MAUREEN STRETCH NO. BD-2012-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on October 2, 2012. 1 SUMMARY 2 The respondent received a six-month suspension with conditions for her misconduct
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,569. In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,569 In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed February 27, 2015.
The Opinions handed down on the 19th day of October, 2004, are as follows:
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 80 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 19th day of October, 2004, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2004- B-0881 IN RE: CARL W.
NO. 10-B-2582 IN RE: ROBERT L. BARRIOS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
02/04/2011 "See News Release 008 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 10-B-2582 IN RE: ROBERT L. BARRIOS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
General District Courts
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,059. In the Matter of PETER EDWARD GOSS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,059 In the Matter of PETER EDWARD GOSS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 5, 2014.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2014 WI 48 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Geneva E. McKinley, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Geneva
Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer
Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer This pamphlet provides general information relating to the purpose and procedures of the Florida lawyer discipline system. It should be read carefully and completely
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolanin, 121 Ohio St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-1393.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolanin, 121 Ohio St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-1393.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WOLANIN. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolanin, 121 Ohio St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-1393.] Attorney misconduct,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) ) PETITION TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY (Misdemeanor) I,, respectfully represent