Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bargeron

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted a joint petition for discipline on consent concerning attorney David Louis Bargeron. The matter involved conversion, commingling, and failure to remit approximately $11,082.75 in client settlement funds, along with related failures to communicate and false annual fee-form representations. The court ordered Bargeron suspended from practice for three years and required compliance with Pa.R.D.E. 217 and payment of disciplinary costs.

Holdings

1. Bargeron's admitted conduct violated the cited Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and warranted public discipline.
2. A three-year suspension from the practice of law was appropriate discipline on consent, together with compliance with Rule 217 and payment of disciplinary-board costs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bargeron violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.15, and 8.4 and Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement 203(b)(3) and 219(d)(iii) by failing to communicate with a client, failing to account for and deliver settlement proceeds, commingling and converting client funds, making misrepresentations on annual-fee forms, and violating disciplinary rules.
2. Whether discipline on consent in the form of a three-year suspension was appropriate.

Disposition

other