Summary
The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board recommended, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ordered, that the anonymous respondent be suspended for six months, with the suspension stayed, and placed on two years of probation. The discipline arose from the respondent’s failure to comply with conditions attached to an informal admonition, including accounting for client time and refunding an unearned fee. The order imposed mental-health treatment and monitoring conditions and required the respondent to pay disciplinary costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent violated the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to comply with the condition attached to an informal admonition.
- Whether respondent established that depression was a substantial factor in causing his misconduct so as to mitigate the appropriate discipline.
- What disciplinary sanction was appropriate in light of respondent's violations, prior disciplinary history, mental-health evidence, and current employment.
Holdings
- Respondent violated Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(2), Pa.R.D.E. 204(b), and R.P.C. 8.4(d) by willfully failing to appear for the informal admonition and failing to satisfy the condition requiring an accounting and refund.
- Respondent did not meet his burden of proving that depression was a substantial factor in causing his misconduct.
- A six-month suspension, stayed in its entirety, with two years of probation and specified mental-health-monitoring conditions, was appropriate.
Key quotations
“The board perceives that respondent is not a threat to the public or to the legal community, and so a complete loss of license is not warranted.” (at 221)
“It is further ordered that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.” (at 224)
Factual background
Respondent, a Pennsylvania attorney, was directed to provide a client with an accounting of time and a refund of any unearned fee before receiving an informal admonition. He did not provide the accounting or refund, did not respond to subsequent disciplinary notices, and was therefore charged with violating disciplinary rules. The client was reimbursed $3,000 by the Pennsylvania Lawyer's Fund for Client Security, which respondent later repaid. Respondent presented evidence of depressive illness, but the Board found that he did not establish that depression was a substantial factor causing his misconduct.
Procedural history
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed the petition for discipline on May 29, 2001. After hearings, the Hearing Committee recommended a six-month suspension stayed in its entirety and two years of probation. The Disciplinary Board adjudicated the matter, recommended the same sanction with mental-health-monitoring conditions, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania entered an order adopting that recommendation on April 20, 2004.