In the Matter of William James Perrone

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted William James Perrone’s second petition for reinstatement after his disbarment. The court held that Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 217(j)(4)(ii) applied to his law-related work as an independent contractor but did not require him to perform that work physically in a supervising attorney’s office. The court also held that his delayed filing of a notice of employment under Rule 217(j)(5) did not demonstrate a lack of fitness for reinstatement and referred the provision to the Disciplinary Board for amendment.

Holdings

1. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4) applies to all law-related services performed by a formerly admitted attorney, regardless of whether the attorney performs those services as an employee or independent contractor.
2. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4)(ii) requires that a supervising attorney be present at a law office on a full-time basis and monitor the formerly admitted attorney's law-related services; it does not require the formerly admitted attorney to perform every task physically in the supervising attorney's office.
3. Perrone's failure to file the notice required by Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(5) until notified by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law and did not warrant denial of reinstatement.
4. Perrone met his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in the law required for reinstatement and that his resumption of practice would not detrimentally affect the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4) applies to a formerly admitted attorney performing law-related services as an independent contractor.
2. Whether Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4)(ii) requires the formerly admitted attorney to perform law-related services physically in the office of a full-time supervising attorney.
3. Whether Perrone's delayed compliance with Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(5) demonstrated a lack of moral qualifications or otherwise precluded reinstatement.
4. Whether Perrone demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that reinstatement would not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.
5. Whether Perrone possessed the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in the law required for reinstatement.

Disposition

other