Skip to Main Content

January 2022

From the Chair
The beginning of a new year provides us an opportunity to start anew and gain perspective. This year, it also provides an opportunity to reflect on the Board’s progress over the past 50 years (the Board was created by the Supreme Court in March 1972; details of the 50th anniversary celebration are forthcoming). 2022 also marks the 300th anniversary of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is the oldest (and, in my opinion, the grandest) appellate court in the nation. A commemorative celebration of the Court’s 300th anniversary is scheduled for the week of May 16, 2022, details of which can be found here.

On January 3, Chief Justice Max Baer officially welcomed Justice P. Kevin Brobson as a member of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania following his swearing-in ceremony. Justice Brobson is the 178th member to serve on the Court and the third Commonwealth Court judge elected to the Supreme Court. On behalf of the entire Board, I wish to extend a heartfelt congratulations to Justice Brobson. It remains an honor to serve as Disciplinary Board Chair under such an esteemed Bench.

In the Articles of Interest section below, we offer the most popular article of each year - the 2021 case roundup - which highlights 10 cases considered to be of great interest to the profession. I encourage you to review them to gain a broader understanding of the work handled by the Board. You can review all decisions by the Board and the Court on our website.

I wish you all a happy and healthy 2022!

Jack P. Goodrich
Board Chair
Discipline Imposed
Reinstatement Granted

December 2021

From Inactive
Rhonda Brownstein
Christopher James Dunn
Jessica Collins White
Karyn L. White

Note: The above-listed reinstatements reflect only those granted by Supreme Court Order. An attorney listed above whose current license status does not reflect reinstatement has yet to submit the fees necessary to finalize reinstatement.
Upcoming Public Proceedings
We encourage you to observe our public disciplinary and reinstatement hearings, oral arguments, and public reprimands on the Board’s YouTube channel. View “Upcoming Public Proceedings” at the bottom of the Board’s home page,

January 18 at 2:45pm - William P. Fedullo - Oral Argument
January 18 at 3:30pm - Charles M. Naselsky - Oral Argument
January 26 - Joshua M. Briskin - Disciplinary Hearing
January 31 - Thomas Mark Shultz - Disciplinary Hearing

February 8 - Michael John Pisanchyn, Jr. - Dispositional Hearing
February 16 - Marianne Sawicki - Disciplinary Hearing
February 17 - Marianne Sawicki - Disciplinary Hearing
February 24 - Lon VanDusen Hughes - Disciplinary Hearing

March 2 - Stephen Paul Hildebrand - Disciplinary Hearing
March 3 - Shawn-Ryan White - Disciplinary Hearing
March 8 - Joshua Lawrence Gayl - Reinstatement Hearing
March 9 - Joshua Lawrence Gayl - Reinstatement Hearing
March 10 - Matthew J. Reusing, Jr. - Reinstatement Hearing
March 22 - Christopher Nicholas Urbano - Disciplinary Hearing
March 23 - Christopher Nicholas Urbano - Disciplinary Hearing
March 28 - James Harry Turner - Disciplinary Hearing

April 19 - William Jay Gregg - Reinstatement Hearing
April 20 - Timothy Nicholas Tomasic - Disciplinary Hearing

To Be Scheduled
Steven Gaspar Bazil - Public Reprimand
Edward Walter Wertman - Public Reprimand

Scheduled proceedings begin at 9:30 am unless otherwise noted.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is aided by select boards, committees, commissions, and councils consisting of more than 180 appointed volunteers - most, but not all, are lawyers and judges. The panels have a wide range of responsibilities and functions. Some make recommendations to the Court for amendments, revisions, or simplification of court procedural rules. Others regulate the practice of law, oversee continuing legal education for lawyers, and administer funds to assist individuals unable to pay for legal services. Still others advise on keeping the courts free of bias and discrimination and on long-range planning.

There are currently vacancies on the following panels:

  • Board of Law Examiners – There is one position available. Applicants must be members of the Pennsylvania bar or jurists. In addition, applicants should be knowledgeable about law school curriculum, legal practice, and attorney ethical obligations. Law school faculty may not serve on this Board. Additionally, applicants should not apply for a membership position if, during that position’s term of service, they will have immediate family members who will be taking the bar examination or seeking membership in the Pennsylvania bar.
  • Disciplinary Board – There is one position available. Applicants for this open position must be members of the Pennsylvania bar. In addition, applicants should be knowledgeable about the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement.
  • Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee – There is one position available. Applicants should be knowledgeable about the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure governing domestic relations matters and be experienced in family law practice in Pennsylvania.

Application Instructions
If you would like to be considered to serve on a board, committee, advisory group, or related independent entity, email the application, cover letter, resume, and other pertinent information expressing your reasons of interest to

More information may be found on the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania website.


Applications are due by January 31, 2022

CDC Corner
Reinstatement and Restitution

To be reinstated to practice, attorneys suspended for more than a year or disbarred must prove by clear and convincing evidence the same “moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this Commonwealth...” and that their return to practice does not subvert the bar’s integrity, the administration of justice or the public interest. Pa.R.D.E. 218(c)(3). To make this showing the petitioner “must demonstrate not only that he understands the nature of his wrongdoing, but also he must convince [the Supreme Court] that he is not predisposed to commit future ethical wrongdoings.” In the Matter of Robert W. Costigan, 664 A.2d 518, 520 (Pa. 1995). Recently the Board and Court issued reports and orders in two cases that provide more specific guidance as to what suffices at a reinstatement hearing when the petitioner has unpaid debts. 

In In the Matter of Jay Berger, No. 159 DB 2008 (D. Bd. Rpt. 9/13/2021) (S. Ct. Order 1/6/2022) the Court rejected the Board’s recommendation of reinstatement because the attorney did not prove that he had made sufficient efforts to honor his outstanding financial obligations. Berger was disbarred for a mortgage fraud conviction that resulted in a restitution order of over $4,000,000. He was paying only $125 per month toward it, and he was making no effort to pay several civil judgments against him and $11,000 in unpaid payroll taxes which he had owed for 15 years. Although Berger claimed he was “paying everything he can,” he chose to pay $1000 per month to relieve his adult children’s student debt rather than contribute greater amounts toward any of these obligations. The Board, disagreeing with the hearing committee, recommended reinstatement. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Board. It issued a rule to show cause (RTSC) why an order denying reinstatement should not be entered, expressing concern about his debts, his failure to devise a plan to address them, and his lack of remorse, as found by the hearing committee. (RTSC dated 11/12/21). After reviewing the parties’ submissions in response to the RTSC, the Court denied reinstatement. 

In In the Matter of Brian Joseph Smith, No. 236 DB 2018, a hearing committee rejected Smith’s petition for reinstatement from a one year and one day suspension largely for his failure to make efforts to pay the $3500 in attorneys’ fees and costs a court had imposed as a sanction for the frivolous litigation which resulted in the suspension, as well as an unrelated malpractice judgment against him. The Board disagreed and recommended reinstatement, finding reassurance of his rehabilitation in Smith’s promise to arrange a payment plan once his license was restored and his income increased. The Court disagreed. It issued a RTSC stating, “Petitioner should address whether he has demonstrated a good faith effort towards satisfying his outstanding debt. Petitioner should also discuss the Hearing Committee’s observations that his testimony relative to his income was incredible and that he did not show his remorse for his failure to repay his obligations.” (RTSC dated 1/6/22). While the Court has not issued a final ruling, its RTSC suggests that Smith must do more than he has to deserve reinstatement.

Both Berger and Smith presented a raft of good character witnesses. Aside from their failure to meet their restitution obligations, they both expressed remorse, although the hearing committee and the Board disagreed on their sincerity. In their focus on restitution as a test of rehabilitation the Court’s orders should be read to require a serious effort to meet financial obligations, even if painful, as a sine qua non for earning reinstatement.
Thomas J. Farrell
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Articles of Interest
Top Disciplinary Board Cases of Interest for 2021

Each year we review the cases decided by the Disciplinary Board and/or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and identify cases of greatest interest. Cases may be considered of interest for several reasons:

  • That they raise or decide issues that cast light on ethical considerations in the practice of law;
  • That they raise issues of emerging technology or practice in the legal profession;
  • That they illuminate some aspect of the function of the disciplinary process; 
  • That they involve prominent individuals or major news in the Pennsylvania legal community; or
  • That they are based on facts that are startling enough to warrant attention.
The following ten cases caught our attention:

1. Anne Marie Howells represented a client in a divorce matter and received a sum of money which she deposited into her trust account. She received what appeared to be an email from the client instructing her to distribute the funds to a third party in San Francisco, California, because the client was purportedly out of town. She did so without confirming the request with the client. It turned out that the email was not from the client, but from an impersonator, which she might have realized had she noticed the client’s name was misspelled in the email. Although she contacted the police when the fraud was discovered, the funds could not be recovered. The client filed a claim with the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security, which approved the claim. At that point, she reimbursed the client.

In response to the complaint, Howells denied all wrongdoing. The Disciplinary Board found four violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct relating to diligence, communication, and handling of funds, and imposed a public reprimand on Howells.

This case illustrates the risks faced by lawyers in an environment where technology has enabled dishonest people to perpetrate ever more elaborate scams, and the duty of lawyers to exercise diligence to avoid being drawn into them.

2. Andrew Barbin's case arose from his representation of a former Deputy Secretary for Dog Law Enforcement in litigation against animal rights activists critical of her performance in office. Barbin filed a defamation lawsuit in Dauphin County and released a copy of the complaint to a Philadelphia news reporter. The resulting story led to a countersuit in Philadelphia County by an activist, alleging that Barbin and the newspaper had defamed her. The Philadelphia case proceeded to a jury trial which resulted in a verdict that Barbin had defamed the plaintiff. Barbin did not appeal the judgment, but paid it off through his liability insurance. He received an informal admonition based on the Philadelphia verdict.

Meanwhile, the Dauphin County case was still pending. Barbin failed to inform the Dauphin County court of the verdict and judgment in the Philadelphia case in Proposed Findings of Fact he filed or otherwise. Only when the defendants filed a response did the Dauphin County court learn of the Philadelphia verdict. The judge ruled that Barbin’s client was collaterally estopped from proceeding with her case, and dismissed the claims with prejudice. Barbin appealed the decision to the Superior Court, which affirmed it.

Barbin also committed various kinds of misconduct in four other cases. The Disciplinary Board found that, among numerous other violations, Barbin violated rules involving frivolous actions, lack of candor to the tribunal, and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court suspended Barbin from the practice of law for eighteen months.

3. Edward Heyburn is a New Jersey-based lawyer who was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1997. In 2006 he was "transferred to inactive status by Supreme Court Order" (terminology changed to "Administrative Suspension" in 2009) for failure to meet Continuing Legal Education requirements, in which status he remained through the events in question.

In January 2018, Heyburn was asked by his firm to serve as co-counsel in a case pending in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Lead counsel had his litigation support professional prepare an application for Heyburn to be admitted before the Monroe County case on a pro hac vice basis. However, Heyburn was ineligible for pro hac vice admission due to his Pennsylvania licensure. He also failed to list the Pennsylvania licensure in a portion of the application asking about all bars to which the applicant is admitted. The application also failed to list New Jersey disciplinary inquiries underway against Heyburn, which resulted later in the imposition of three censures on Heyburn.

The Disciplinary Board found that this conduct violated several of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. The Supreme Court suspended Heyburn for eighteen months.

4. John William Eddy's case is an excellent illustration of the application of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Seymour Braun, 553 A.2d 894 (Pa. 1989) to cases involving psychiatric and other disorders. Eddy was found to have committed serious misconduct involving misappropriation of funds. Much of the Board report is given to documentation of his extensive history of mental disorders, substance abuse, rehabilitation and therapy, and relapses. The Board concluded that Eddy met his burden of proof to establish a case for mitigation under the Braun standard, and provided an extensive analysis of several cases applying such mitigation in matters of serious discipline. The Supreme Court suspended Eddy from the practice of law for three years, retroactive to the date of his emergency temporary suspension in 2019.

This case will be a useful resource for counsel seeking guidance as to the application of mitigation due to mental health and substance abuse issues in cases of serious misconduct.

5. & 6. Paul C. Dougherty's and Bradley A. Winnick's cases involved public officials who received discipline for misconduct in office.

Dougherty was a township commissioner in New Jersey. He referred a township employee to a lawyer for a lawsuit against the township and received an illegal referral fee. He was convicted of a New Jersey offense with no analogous provision in Pennsylvania law. He received a reprimand from the Supreme Court of New Jersey. He failed to report his conviction to Pennsylvania. As a result, he entered into a Joint Stipulation providing for a public reprimand for violation of Pa. R.D.E. 203(b)(1), failure to report conviction.

Winnick was Chief Public Defender of Dauphin County. He offered employees of the office double compensatory time for hours they spent handing out campaign literature for judges at the polls. He pled guilty to one count of Restricted Activities – Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103 §§ A, and was sentenced to eighteen months’ probation and $14,000 in restitution. He entered into a Joint Stipulation providing for a suspension of one year and one day, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed.

7. & 8. Edward Meehan's and Julie Chovanes' cases arose from disruptive conduct during proceedings.

Meehan was found in contempt of court after the Superior Court found that he “engaged in misconduct by making distracting remarks, laughing, and snidely expressing disagreement with the court’s ruling by stating that the trial judge needs to know and read up on the law.” He also failed to represent a client diligently in a criminal case. He agreed to a disposition of a suspension for six months, stayed in its entirety by one year of probation.

Chovanes agreed to a public reprimand after a court imposed sanctions on her for a course of conduct which the court called “consistently flippant, overly aggressive, truculent, and quick to confrontation” during teleconferences. She also disrupted a deposition by interrupting, lodging frivolous objections, improperly instructing her client not to answer, arguing with counsel, and making suggestive objections that coached the witness how to answer.

9. William Krzton employed the “perfect secretary” who managed his trust account without supervision. In 2013 he discovered she had stolen $3,300 from an estate. He gave her a second chance, treating the theft as his fee from the estate, deducting it from her paychecks, taking no other corrective action, and continuing to allow her to manage the account unsupervised. Three years later, he discovered she had stolen nearly $200,000 from seven estates. Even after that discovery, he continued to employ her for two months because he was busy and “not computer literate.” The Disciplinary Board found violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct including diligence, trust account handling, and supervision. After examining comparable cases of lawyers who failed to supervise staff and mitigating factors, the Disciplinary Board recommended a suspension for six months, which the Supreme Court imposed.

10. Ephriam T. R. Mella was charged with numerous acts of misconduct in immigration cases in the Federal courts. The Petition for Discipline alleged violations of both the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) regarding immigration proceedings. Mella argued that since he only practiced in Federal Court, only the CFR governed his conduct, and that the RPC did not apply to these cases. The Disciplinary Board examined cases determined under RPC 8.5 regarding disciplinary authority and choice of law, and concluded that both the RPC and CFR governed conduct in the Federal court system. The Supreme Court suspended Mella from the practice of law for one year and one day. The Board report is a useful resource for anyone considering issues of choice of law under Rule 8.5.

ABA Journal Top Tens

We are not the only ones who make lists at this time of the year. The ABA Journal has compiled several lists of highlights for your enjoyment. Check these out:

Top Ten News Stories of 2021 - Several of the top ten stories centered around the tumultuous presidential transition, including the top two, which were about lawyers caught up in the events of January 6. But fortunately the one about the lawyer who realized he was arguing the wrong case five minutes into his argument before the Ninth Circuit sneaked in at #10.

Most Significant Supreme Court Cases of 2021 - It’s not a list, but Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, provides a roundup of significant issues surrounding the Supreme Court. He regards Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, in which the Supreme Court limited remedies under the Voting Rights Act, as the most significant decision of 2021.

Favorite long reads of 2021 - The editorial staff selected a number of long articles from the Journal worth reading. Of note is an analysis on how Law and Order, with its groundbreaking emphasis on procedure rather than the characters’ personal lives, created a new way of looking at the law through the media, and sent countless members of its audience to law school or law enforcement.

10 favorite podcast episodes of 2021 - This article offers a selection of notable podcast episodes, addressing diverse topics such as changes in Supreme Court practice over the years, AI-powered brief writing and evidence management tools, neurodiverse lawyers, and “Why do barristers wear wigs? Fashion and the law.”

Top 5 legal technology news stories of 2021 - In a year full of technological innovations, the top story has to be, of course, “The Remote Work Revolution.”

Michigan Bar Column Boosts Plain English

Everybody is in favor of legal writing in plain English, even those of us who have penned “Now comes the Plaintiff by its counsel and moves your Honorable Court” more times than we care to think of. Still, opaque and tangled legal language remains a part of our legal life.

For the last 37 years, the Michigan Bar Journal has contributed to the movement for plain English by publishing its Plain Language column. Established in 1984 by a Michigan lawyer named George Hathaway, the column has been edited since 1988 by Distinguished Professor Emeritus Joseph Kimble of Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

The column under Professor Kimble’s leadership has not been content to publish articles encouraging plain language. The Professor has also spearheaded several studies to empirically measure the effectiveness of simplified writing styles. One step that won wide support for readability among a study’s judicial participants simply eliminated case citations from the body of the text, relegating them to footnotes. This simple change met with approval by a margin of 58% to 42% from the judges reading the samples.

The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Standing Committee for Rules of Practice and Procedure issued proposed revisions to several sets of Federal rules aimed at simplifying and clarifying the language of the rules. One prominent example borrowed from the Michigan Bar column proposed modification of Rule 1003 of the Federal Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure, a Byzantine structure of 194 words broken into four sentences, into a more readable format of six sentences or clauses, none longer than 28 words. Sometimes plain and clear language can be achieved not just by eliminating florid word choice, but simply by restructuring complex sentences into smaller, simpler units.

Lawyers Work to Secure Temporary Status for Women Judges from Afghanistan

A coalition of lawyers in the United States is working to establish temporary legal status for as many as 250 women judges from Afghanistan, who are jeopardized by the Taliban takeover of the country. An estimated 150 have left Afghanistan, but many are living in marginal conditions in host countries around the world. Estimates say that another 95 judges still in Afghanistan are actively trying to leave. Only four have found a place in the United States.

The International Association of Women Judges is coordinating pro bono efforts with DLA Piper, which has referred cases to firms including Vinson & Elkins, Debevoise & Plimpton, and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Many of the judges seek humanitarian parole through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (UCIS), which would allow them to stay temporarily while they seek permanent status. The UCIS has a backlog of applications, but is adding staff in hopes of processing them more expeditiously.

American Bar Association President Reginald Turner wrote Secretary of State Antony Blinken September 23 to express the ABA’s support for the effort and for the swift processing of applications to help lawyers and judges at risk to escape the country and find sanctuary in the US.

Attorney Well-Being

Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers (LCL) is a confidential and safe resource for Pennsylvania attorneys and their family members who may be struggling with their mental health or substance use. An astounding one in three legal professionals will face these issues at some point in their career. Since 1988, LCL has confidentially assisted and supported thousands of individuals who have faced a myriad of challenges (including grief, stress, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, gambling problems, problematic alcohol or prescription drug use, etc.), helping them navigate through dark and difficult times. Members of our profession are dying because they are afraid or unable to ask for help. If you or someone you know is struggling, please call us. You may save a life. There is help and there is hope.
Resource Guide for the Legal Profession During COVID-19

Confidential 24/7 Helpline: 1-888-999-1941

Lawyers-only support meetings
Peer and staff support & resource coordination
LCL resources are free, voluntary, & confidential
Free CLE, resources, and information at 
Assessment by a healthcare professional to determine a customized treatment plan, if indicated
Around the Court

Judge P. Kevin Brobson Sworn in as Newest Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

On January 3, Chief Justice Max Baer officially welcomed Justice P. Kevin Brobson as a member of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania following his swearing-in ceremony.

Surrounded by his wife and children, Brobson took the oath of office administered by Commonwealth Court President Judge Emerita Mary Hannah Leavitt in the Supreme Court Courtroom in Harrisburg.

A resident of Dauphin County, Justice Brobson is the 178th member to serve on the Court and the third Commonwealth Court judge elected to the Supreme Court.

Established in 1722, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the oldest appellate court in the country and has played an important role in the history of the Commonwealth. As the state’s highest court, the seven justices make the final decisions interpreting Pennsylvania’s laws and Constitution, have full administrative authority over Pennsylvania’s judicial system and hear cases involving issues of immediate public importance arising in any court in the Commonwealth. Read more...


Pennsylvania Courts Launch Awareness Campaign to Help Stop Human Trafficking
On January 10, the Pennsylvania Courts launched an awareness campaign to educate Pennsylvanians about the signs and risk factors of the many forms human trafficking can take and the resources available for victims of human trafficking.

Human trafficking is a type of human rights abuse where people profit from the exploitation of others – mainly using force, fraud, or coercion to manipulate victims into engaging in sex acts or labor/services in exchange for something of value.

Anyone under age 18 who exchanges sex for something of value are human-trafficking victims, regardless of whether force, fraud, or coercion are involved.

While there is much wider awareness about sex trafficking in the U.S., human trafficking also encompasses labor trafficking. In a labor trafficking situation, persons are exploited for cheap or unpaid labor and are sometimes forced to take on unreasonable debt as a condition of employment.

Produced by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, the human-trafficking awareness campaign includes digital ads and videos running on social media platforms in both English and Spanish. The campaign messaging illustrates a variety of human-trafficking misconceptions and the tactics traffickers may use to manipulate women and men. Read more...

From the Pennsylvania Bar Association 

Invite, Invest, and Inspire: A Call to Action

The topic of the hour is the ongoing success, credibility, and esteem of the legal profession. Each of us has an essential responsibility to uphold the standards of the profession, just by virtue of being an attorney and taking our professional oath.
The pandemic set into motion numerous changes and challenges to the way we practice law and go about our daily lives. Despite rising to the occasion, most lawyers have also struggled with technology challenges, work-life balance, changing demands and expectations from clients, and more. But while our work has been impacted and our levels of daily stress have increased, we also are more cognizant that some of our colleagues are coping with additional stressors that invariably impact their practice and career path. One such demographic are young lawyers newly admitted to practice and to the profession.

In addition to "normal" stressors facing young lawyers (e.g., student loan debt, getting a job, or learning what it really means to be a lawyer), several leaders in the legal industry have raised concern about the isolation of working remotely; lost opportunities to be mentored and to take in our professional culture, norms and aspirations through routine, in-person conversations, interactions, and shared experiences; and the long-term impact this will have on current and future generations of lawyers if we don't act now.

It’s not the big thing (the pandemic) that’s going to change the legal profession. It’s the hundred little things - the opportunities that we take or don’t take - that are going to ultimately determine the future success of the legal profession. 

So, the PBA challenges every attorney reading this (and yes, even new lawyers know someone who can use a little help or outreach) to:

  • Invite a young attorney to a bar association event, to lunch, to a round of golf, or to grab a morning coffee. Invite conversation and make them feel valued and welcome in our profession. Someone likely did it for you, and now it's your turn to...
  • Invest in a young attorney. Help to elevate their professionalism. Listen to them. Make a connection to help further their career or leadership path. Be a mentor, a coach, or just a lawyer-friend with a little more life experience than they have. Remember that this doesn't have to be a BIG thing. It's little things that ultimately effect change. And on the flip side, it’s doing nothing - and the many little missed opportunities - that can shift our profession to a place where we don't want to be, where attorneys no longer treat each other with civility, for example. You can prevent this by seeking to...
  • Inspire through your own generosity, concern, outreach, and example. There are nuances and subtleties we observe and learn from being around other attorneys. Inspire greatness and excellence. Inspire respect and appreciation. Inspire kindness and dignity. Inspire connection and an urgency to belong to professional bar associations. Help to support the values and intangible culture that get passed along when multiple generations of judges and attorneys have opportunities to come together and share their stories and experiences

Watch for new episodes of the PBA's Young Lawyers Division Becoming series in 2022. This informative series is just one of many actions the PBA is taking to “invite, invest, and inspire" young and newly admitted lawyers. Tune in and help PBA do more. Perform one of the hundred little actions that will make a positive difference.
Pennsylvania Bar Association: Promoting excellence in the law; serving lawyers in every practice area in every corner of Pennsylvania. Join the PBA today.


Please note that the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) are separate organizations. For more information about PBA, visit their website
We Want To Hear From You...
We are always on the lookout for stories of interest relating to legal ethics, new issues in the practice of law, lawyer wellness, and funny or just plain weird stories about the legal profession. If you come across something you think might be enlightening, educational, or entertaining to our readers or social media followers, pass it along. If you are our original source, there may be a hat tip in it for you.

Copyright (C) 2022 The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 5600, PO Box 62625, Harrisburg, PA 17106