Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Simpson

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against Stephen W. Simpson for commingling client and personal funds, overdrawing an IOLTA account, and practicing law while on inactive status. The court ordered a two-year suspension and required compliance with Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 217, with costs assessed against Simpson.

Holdings

1. Simpson violated Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) by commingling personal funds with client funds, and his use of the IOLTA account and repeated overdrafts constituted additional professional misconduct under the cited professional-conduct and disciplinary-enforcement rules.
2. An attorney transferred to inactive status may not accept new retainers, engage as an attorney in new matters, or represent himself or herself as a lawyer, and Simpson violated those requirements by handling approximately 100 legal matters and appearing as counsel while remaining ineligible to practice.
3. A two-year suspension from the practice of law was appropriate for Simpson's prolonged and extensive unauthorized practice while inactive, failure to inform clients of his status, commingling of funds, and repeated IOLTA overdrafts, notwithstanding his remorse, cooperation, and lack of prior discipline.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Simpson violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement by commingling personal and client funds and mishandling his IOLTA account.
2. Whether Simpson violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement by practicing law and holding himself out as an attorney while on inactive status.
3. What disciplinary sanction was appropriate in light of the unauthorized practice, financial misconduct, mitigating circumstances, and prior disciplinary precedent.

Disposition

other