Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hickey

Summary

The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board considered the appropriate sanction after James A. Hickey was held in contempt for practicing law while suspended, failing to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 217, and failing to pay disciplinary costs. The Board found that Hickey continued to hold himself out as an attorney, had a significant prior disciplinary and criminal history, and failed to participate in the proceedings. It unanimously recommended disbarment, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court entered an order disbarring him and assessing costs.

Holdings

1. Disbarment was the appropriate sanction because Hickey practiced law while suspended, failed to comply with Rule 217 and the prior suspension order, failed to pay assessed costs, refused to acknowledge the authority of the disciplinary tribunals, and had a significant prior disciplinary and criminal history.

Questions Presented

1. What sanction was appropriate for Hickey's willful contempt of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's suspension order and related violations of the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement?
2. Whether Hickey's unauthorized practice of law, noncompliance with suspension obligations, failure to pay disciplinary costs, prior discipline, and refusal to participate in the proceedings warranted disbarment.

Disposition

other