Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Forrest

Summary

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recommended, and the Supreme Court ordered, that Harry Curtis Forrest Jr. be suspended from practicing law for one year and one day. The discipline arose from Forrest’s unauthorized practice of law while on inactive status, failure to notify courts and clients of that status, use of misleading legal letterhead, and failure to file a required compliance statement. The court also ordered Forrest to pay disciplinary costs.

Holdings

1. Respondent violated Rule 7.5(a) by using legal letterhead in a communication that falsely or misleadingly represented his status and ability to provide legal services while he was on inactive status.
2. Respondent did not violate Rule 8.4(b) on the record presented.
3. Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) by continuing to practice law while on inactive status and by failing to comply with notification and related requirements.
4. Respondent violated R.P.C. 5.5(b), R.P.C. 8.4(c), Rule 217(b), Rule 217(c), Rule 217(d), Rule 217(e), and Rule 217(j), Pa.R.D.E.
5. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day and ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether respondent violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 7.5(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement 217(b), (c), (d), (e), and (j), by practicing law and using legal letterhead after being transferred to inactive status.
2. Whether respondent violated Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.
3. What discipline was appropriate for respondent's unauthorized practice of law and related violations.

Disposition

other