Skip to Main Content

March 2023

From the Chair
At the beginning of each April, new Disciplinary Board leadership takes the reins of this prestigious organization. As my chairmanship nears conclusion, I take immense pride in reflecting upon the progress and achievements of the past year. These past twelve months have provided myriad occasions for both evaluation and innovation. From an annual fee waiver application for those experiencing extreme financial hardship to new avenues for lawyer education and professional development, the Board and its staff fervently have risen to each challenge. As the Board returned to safely holding in-person proceedings, Board staff and Hearing Committee Members once again pivoted to meet the needs of a community transformed by the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide further public access and transparency to the Board’s work.
I would like to thank all my fellow Board Members, our staff, and the more than 150 volunteer Hearing Committee Members for their commitment to the integrity of Pennsylvania’s legal profession. The Board’s work is complex and often difficult, but the contributions of each member of this team are a testament to public service and advancement. Thank you to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for entrusting me with the honor to serve our profession in this capacity.
Published today, the Board’s 2022 Annual Report illustrates the exceptional work of the Board, its staff, and its Hearing Committee Members throughout the course of another demanding but rewarding year. As everyone at the Disciplinary Board builds upon the momentum of 2022, we look to the coming year with anticipation of further growth. To the succeeding Board Chair and Vice-Chair, my distinguished colleagues Dion G. Rassias and John C. Rafferty, Jr., I extend my ardent support and regard. I look forward to the Board’s continued endeavors in service of the highest standards of professionalism and ethical law practice. The Board is certainly in capable hands.
With my greatest esteem,
Jerry M. Lehocky
Board Chair
Discipline Imposed

February 2023
From Inactive
Joseph J. Funaro
Susan Irene Stables
Mark Gerard Stall
Elizabeth Rebecca Wilson
Timothy Zanghi
From Retired
Rasheena Ann Reid

From Administrative Suspension
Deborah L. Erardi
Aeryn Seltzer Fenton
Joel L. Schwartz
Stephen Brian Simek
Peter George Solinsky, Jr.
Jeffrey Daniel Winitsky
Note: The above-listed granted reinstatement matters reflect only those granted by Supreme Court Order. An attorney listed as reinstatement granted, but whose current license status does not reflect reinstatement, has yet to submit the fees necessary to finalize reinstatement.
Disciplinary Board News


Disciplinary Board Publishes 2022 Annual Report

The Disciplinary Board has published its 2022 Annual Report. Here are a few highlights:

In 2022, the Supreme Court issued orders in twenty adjudicated matters, adopting the Board’s recommendation in seventeen of those matters.

These sections of the Pa. Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, among others, were amended:

  • Pa.R.D.E. 402, to allow disclosure of confidential information under some circumstances, including notifying complainants of the disposition of their complaints, upon a finding of the Board that disclosure serves the interests of justice, and allowing Disciplinary Counsel to refer matters to Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania when substance abuse issues are of concern.
  • Pa.R.D.E. 219(a) now provides for a financial hardship waiver of the active annual fee.
  • Pa.R.D.E. 205, to provide for electronic hearings in pre- and post-hearing proceedings, and public livestream of hearings, oral arguments, and public censures and reprimands.
In 2022, the following were filed:

  • Sixty-two Petitions for Discipline, of which thirty-three were joint petitions.
  • Thirteen petitions for reinstatement from discipline, with eleven petitions granted and four denied. (Note that these numbers do not add up because some dispositions were of matters filed in previous years and some matters were not adjudicated by the end of the year.)
  • Eighty petitions for reinstatement from inactive, retired, or administrative suspension for more than three years filed, with fifty-nine granted.
The following disciplinary actions were recorded:

  • Twenty-five disbarments;
  • Twenty-eight suspensions;
  • Fourteen temporary suspensions;
  • Twenty-one public reprimands;
  • Twelve private reprimands; and
  • Thirty-nine informal admonitions.

Annual attorney registration opens on or before May 15, with a July 1 deadline. In 2022, annual attorney registration opened on April 25 to over 75,400 eligible attorneys.

Pa.R.D.E. 219(a) now requires attorneys to complete annual attorney registration electronically.

On August 10, 2022, 1,039 attorneys who failed to complete registration were certified to the Supreme Court for administrative suspension. Ultimately, 272 attorneys were administratively suspended for continued failure to comply, which was a record low.

In 2022, 1,689 new attorneys were admitted to the Pennsylvania bar.

Since 2018, emeritus status has been an option for retired attorneys who desire to perform pro bono work with legal aid organizations. At the start of 2022, there were twenty-six attorneys on emeritus status. By year-end, that number grew by more than thirty percent to thirty-four emeritus attorneys.

Using Webex videoconferencing and the YouTube platform for livestreaming, the Board conducted and streamed to the public twenty-five hearings, five oral arguments, and twenty-one public reprimands. In total, five-one proceedings were live-streamed in 2022, accounting for over 185 hours of live-streaming.

By Supreme Court Order dated March 14, 2022, the annual fee for active attorneys for the 2022-2023 registration year is set at $275. Of this amount, $195 is allocated to the Disciplinary Board, $50 to the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security, and $30 to the IOLTA Board.

Apply to Become a Disciplinary Board Hearing Committee Member

Annually, the Disciplinary Board is tasked with the appointment of Hearing Committee Members. Duties of Hearing Committee Members include reviewing the recommended disposition of complaints as offered by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; conducting disciplinary and reinstatement hearings, either as a three-member panel or single designated member; and preparing a written report and recommendation to the Board following disciplinary and reinstatement proceedings.

The Disciplinary Board is committed to appointing diverse Hearing Committee Members, recognizing that diversity of experience, practice area, background, race, gender, and geography is beneficial to the disciplinary process. For Hearing Committee Member positions, the Board considers applicants with at least seven years of relevant experience.

Applicants are required to:

  • be a member in good standing of the Pennsylvania bar;
  • maintain an office for the practice of law within Pennsylvania;
  • be willing to participate in in-person disciplinary and reinstatement proceedings; and
  • be fully-vaccinated against COVID-19 in accordance with the Board’s vaccination policies.

Please review the Hearing Committee Member duties for more information and apply today!

Applications are due Monday, March 20, 2023.

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. You can also view “Upcoming Public Proceedings” at the bottom of the Board’s home page.

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

Articles of Interest

Philadelphia Attorney Suspended After Affair with Client
By Order dated February 13, 2023, Philadelphia attorney Pearlette Vivian Toussant was suspended for one year on a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent after acknowledging that she engaged in an affair with a client and acted contrary to the client’s interests when it ended.
Ms. Toussant began the affair with a client after the client retained her firm to seek recovery for damages to her home caused by construction on an adjacent lot. At one point, she sent her client/lover a text message stating, “I read the ethical rules and I think we are okay.” However, Rule 1.8(j) of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not allow an attorney to engage in a sexual relationship with a client unless the relationship preexisted the representation.
Eventually, the client sought to end the personal relationship. Ms. Toussant told her partners that the client had elected to terminate the representation of the law firm which was not true. She also delivered the client’s file and papers to her house, leaving an envelope containing them in an unsecured outside location. The client testified that she believed that papers were missing from the envelope and might have been taken by a third party, possibly related to her next-door neighbors who were the opposing party.
Ms. Toussant agreed that her conduct violated RPC 1.8(j) and also RPC 1.7(a)(2) (concurrent conflict of interest); RPC 1.6(d) (make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of client information); RPC 1.16(a) (a lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct); RPC 1.16(d) (upon termination, take steps to protect the client's interests); and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
The Joint Petition requested that a three-member panel of the Board approve a resolution under which Ms. Toussant will be suspended from the practice of law which it did. The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation and suspended Ms. Toussant for one year.

Delaware Lawyer Suspended After Allowing Investigator to Contact Juror
A Delaware lawyer has been suspended after an investigator he hired contacted a juror, and he lied about it to a court.
By Order dated January 23, 2023, the Supreme Court of Delaware accepted a report of the Board on Professional Responsibility and suspended attorney Andre M. Beauregard.
Beauregard was working as criminal conflicts counsel for the Office of Conflicts Counsel. He was engaged to represent a defendant convicted of murder. Beauregard filed a motion for a new trial, alleging possible juror bias stemming from a connection between a juror and Bailey’s co-defendant. He hired a private investigation (“PI”) firm to look into possible connections between the juror and co-defendant. The PI firm informed Beauregard that the juror and codefendant had twenty-five Facebook friends in common and proposed contacting twenty-two of them. They later inquired as to whether it would be permissible to interview the juror. In an exchange of multiparty emails, Beauregard replied, “Sure he can,” and a member of the PI firm proceeded to contact the witness. Beauregard maintained at his disciplinary hearing that his response was only intended to authorize interviewing the Facebook friends and that he did not intend to approve contacting the juror.
Six days later, an investigator called Beauregard and reported that he had interviewed the juror who was willing to speak with Beauregard directly. Beauregard testified that he was shocked that the investigator had contacted the juror and directed him to shut down the investigation and have no further contact with the juror. The firm sent Beauregard a final report which included information on the contact with the juror. He did not report to the court or the prosecution that a juror had been contacted.
Weeks later, Beauregard filed a motion seeking more time for investigation. During a hearing on the motion, the judge instructed Beauregard that investigators were not to contact jurors. At that point, Beauregard revealed to the court that contact with a juror occurred but stated that it was done by the investigator without his knowledge or approval. The Board on Professional Responsibility found that this statement was false.
The Board on Professional Responsibility found that Beauregard had violated RPC 5.3(a) [reasonable effort to assure compliance with the RPC], 3.5(c) [prohibiting communication with a juror], 5.3(c)(2) [failure to take action to correct violation], and 8.4(c) [conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation]. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings and ordered Beauregard suspended for two years with the opportunity for limited reinstatement after one year to serve as counsel for indigent defendants with the Office of Conflicts Counsel program.

Alex Jones Lawyer Escapes Sanctions
In February, we reported on the suspension of an attorney for controversial radio host Alex Jones, based on his careless release of confidential information in response to a discovery request. Another of Jones’s lawyers fared better.
In a decision dated January 17, 2023, Judge Barbara Bellis of the Superior Court of Connecticut determined that she would not order the suspension of Texas lawyer F. Andino Reynal as she had for Connecticut attorney Norm Pattis. However, she did require him to notify any Connecticut court of her findings of an ethics violation if he wants to handle a case in the state in the future.
Reynal provided opposing counsel with links to information containing confidential documents subject to a protective order, including medical records for family members of victims in the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Reynal received the records from a bankruptcy lawyer who had gotten them from Pattis. When the opposing counsel notified Reynal that he had apparently disclosed confidential documents, Reynal told him to disregard the link and ordered his paralegal to deactivate it. He failed to request that opposing counsel destroy or return the improperly disclosed information, to report the disclosure to Pattis, or to file a motion to remediate the disclosure. After a waiting period, opposing counsel deleted the confidential records but used information from the disclosure in his cross examination of Jones.
Judge Bellis found that Reynal violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by the careless disclosure but found several mitigating factors, including that he expressed remorse, cooperated in the ethics investigation, traveled to Connecticut for the ethics hearing, filed a motion for a protective order after the cross-examination, had no prior discipline, and had no dishonest or selfish motive.

Reynal is not home free, however. On January 13, a Texas judge issued an order finding that Reynal was subject to sanctions in a related Texas defamation case for engaging in a bad faith scheme to disrupt the litigation with an abusive and frivolous bankruptcy filing and a groundless removal.

Law Firm Sues Departed Associate for Billable Hours Shortfall
The Supreme Court of North Dakota agreed with a law firm that it could sue a former associate to recover salary paid to him during periods when they fell short of the firm’s billable hour requirements – during the pandemic, no less.
The Bismarck, ND firm Larson Latham Huettl sued its former associate Travis Iverson to recover salary paid to Iverson during his two-year stint as an associate for the firm. The firm relied on a contract provision which stated:
“In the event that Associate bills out less than the base quota for a three-month period, the Associate’s salary will be reduced appropriately at the discretion of LLH in order to make up for any discrepancy. Any discrepancy where the actual hours billed is less than the base hours required will be considered to be a debt owed by Associate to LLH at the end of the calendar year or at the termination of employment.”

After Iverson terminated his employment with the firm, LLH sued him for $35,772.63 in salary claimed due to insufficient hours. Iverson raised a number of defenses, including that the contract was unconscionable, that the firm waived its claim by failing to reduce his salary for underperformance at regular intervals, that it was impossible for him to perform, as his contract limited him to working only for LLH, and the firm did not assign him enough work to meet his quota.

The district court brushed aside these defenses and granted summary judgment for the law firm. The district court noted that there was “some level of procedural unconscionability” because LLH drafted the document and asked Iversen to sign it after he had already begun his employment but found no unconscionability in the fact that the firm controlled the work assigned to Iverson. “Having requirements for one’s employees is not unconscionable,” it noted. “Rather, LLH was seeking to make Iversen’s position profitable for the firm.” It dismissed the argument that the firm did not supply Iverson with clients to meet his billable hour requirements by noting, “There is nothing in the contract which states the partners would provide clients for Iversen.”

In an opinion dated February 16, 2023, the Supreme Court of North Dakota upheld the district court's decision.

Top Tech Stories: Are the Robot Lawyers Coming?

Last month, we profiled the ABA Journal’s Top Ten Legal Stories for 2022. This month we look at the Journal’s Top Four Legal Tech Stories. Compiled by New York lawyer and legal technology evangelist at MyCase Nicole Black, they are:

1. Continued acceleration in legal tech funding and acquisitions: A round of corporate acquisitions and high funding initiatives indicate that legal tech is a fast-growing and attractive field.

2. Layoffs and pivots to ward off the looming recession: Despite the surge in technology, the field remains risky for both investors and employees as competition leads to layoffs and companies leaving the field.

3. Increased emphasis on legal technology ethics and competence: As technology reaches further into the core of legal practice, lawyers face new ethical challenges, and continuing education geared to the new realities is much in demand. The Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility led the way with Formal Opinion 2020-300 which addressed issues such as online information storage, virtual offices, communication through online resources, encryption, and cybersecurity. New York became the first state to require lawyers to complete a unit on cybersecurity as part of their continuing education requirements.

4. The robots are coming: The biggest story, in terms of the volume of coverage, seems to be the rise of robot lawyers, or more specifically, artificial intelligence programs that simulate legal reasoning.

Much of the attention has centered around ChatGPT 3.5, a product of OpenAI which uses an advanced neural network machine-learning model to create written passages from simple text prompts. ChatGPT earned a passing (if mediocre) grade on a law school examination, and it was marketed for the purpose of representing litigants in traffic court until the creator got cold feet in the face of unlicensed practice threats. To get an idea where ChatGPT 3.5 is at, check out what happened when two lawyers asked it to brief the famous California “Bees are Fish” case.

Pro Bono Lawyers Help Free Man Wrongfully Imprisoned for Twenty-Eight Years

Due to the efforts of two Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner lawyers working pro bono, a Missouri man is free after spending twenty-eight years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

February 14th was a sweet Valentine’s Day for Lamar Johnson when Circuit Court Judge David Mason of St. Louis, MO granted a motion to set aside his 1995 conviction on murder charges. Bryan Cave attorneys Charles A. Weiss and Jonathan B. Potts served as special counsel for St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner in proceedings to vacate the conviction. The Midwest Innocence Project spearheaded the effort, and the law firms Morgan Pilate and Lathrop GPM also worked on the case for Johnson.

Gardner sought to free Johnson as early as 2019, but state law at the time did not give her standing to do so, and state Attorney General (now U.S. Senator) Eric Schmitt resolutely opposed the effort. But Missouri legislators amended the statute in 2021, and Johnson became the second longtime prisoner exonerated under the new law. Judge Mason pointed to dramatic testimony at the hearing in which two other men confessed that they committed the murder without Johnson’s involvement.

In a statement to the Kansas City Star, Johnson’s lawyers said, “It took an innocence organization, three law firms, the circuit attorney, both chambers of Missouri’s legislature and the governor’s signature on a law passed for him, to free Lamar Johnson. That is intolerable. That is not justice. We can and must do better.”

Attorney Well-Being

How Can Mindfulness Enhance Law Practice?: A Basic Introduction to Meditation and Mindfulness for Lawyers

Most lawyers have experienced the distress of adding another task to an already heaping plate of professional commitments, of struggling to concentrate while meeting with a client, or of exhaustion at the edge of burnout. However, anyone can take easy and simple steps toward protecting his or her own mental health and well-being. Meditation, or the “variety of practices that focus on mind and body integration and are used to calm the mind and enhance overall well-being”, can help to reconnect to a feeling of stability and awareness.

Meditation and other mindfulness techniques are known to extend sundry benefits to practitioners, chief among them being an increased sense of awareness and a deeper connection to the present moment. Unhealthy stress can often cause an attorney to neglect professional responsibilities and can even develop a pattern of behavior that may lead to disciplinary action.

Why should legal professionals consider meditation as a part of the workday?

  • Promote sound judgement and attention to detail
  • Lower levels of stress and anxiety and improves heart health
  • Build greater emotional resistance
  • Enhance interpersonal skills, including better active listening
  • Encourage more productive sleep 
So, then – what are some basic meditative approaches for beginners of mindfulness practice?

  • Like other forms of meditation, sitting meditation brings the practitioner’s attention to his or her breath.
  • Perform a mental scan of your body’s sensations. This technique begins by focusing attention to the top of your head. Then, slowly move your attention down your body to your toes. Acknowledge sensations felt at each point of your body.
  • Beginners and those more experienced alike may enjoy the instruction of guided meditation. Numerous smartphone apps, podcasts, streaming series, and websites offer the comfort of this type of structure. The New York Times recently published a series of one-, four-, ten-, and fifteen-minute guided sessions.
What are tips for cultivating your own consistent practice?

  • Before practicing a new meditation technique, it is helpful to review postures conducive to your plan for practice. While a cross-legged or kneeling position may appeal to those working from home, a chair position likely will be a favorite for those needing brief respite in an office or other public setting.
  • Setting aside time for meditation, whether it be two minutes or twenty, may require some thoughtful planning but can ultimately foster a more efficient use of time when performing other tasks.
  • Relax any bodily tension. The jaw, shoulders, and hands are common stress-holders.
  • Keep in mind that the mind may roam and that thoughts will likely come and go. Avoid making any judgement about these thoughts and allow them to pass.
  • Start with short, manageable meditations. Anywhere from three to five minutes may be most satisfying to beginners. As you feel more comfortable with your practice, increase meditation sessions over time.
Meditation offers busy legal professionals the opportunity to take a break from the noise of a demanding workload. By consciously “resetting” the mind, meditation can benefit both one’s law practice and personal well-being.

For more mindfulness exercises, see the Disciplinary Board’s January 2023 article “Using Grounding Techniques to Combat Stress and Anxiety”.


Sharing Her Story of Hope: From Addiction to Recovery and Service

Laurie Besden, Executive Director of Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, was recently interviewed for the podcast Be Convinced! Sharing Lifechanging Stories of Hope. Hosted by lawyer and former judge Hon. Soraya Diase Coffelt, Be Convinced! is a series that seeks to inspire hope in its listeners' professional and personal lives.

In this episode, Besden shares her own journey with addiction, hope, and recovery and discusses services and resources offered by Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers.

Access the full podcast episodes via Coffelt's website.
If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health challenges or substance abuse, call LCL's confidential hotline at (888) 999-1941.



Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers is a confidential assistance program for the Pennsylvania legal community and their family members. LCL may not report information about a subject attorney back to the Disciplinary Board.

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

Around the Court

Chief Justice Todd Honors Women Serving in Pennsylvania's Government

In honor of March's Women's History Month, Chief Justice Debra Todd recognized women leaders in Pennsylvania's state government. In a February 28th press release, Chief Justice Todd, Pennsylvania's first female Chief Justice, affirmed, "For the first time in Pennsylvania history, women are rising to the highest levels of leadership. While we celebrate our collective achievements, we also pause to remember those who came before us; their strength propelled us to break through the glass ceiling and continues to drive women to new heights."

Chief Justice Todd acknowledged the recent elections of Representative Joanna McClinton as Pennsylvania's first female Speaker of the House and Senator Kim Ward as President Pro Tempore of the state's Senate.

Visit the Unified Judicial System's website to read the full press release.

New Infographic Recognizes Women on the Bench in Pennsylvania

The Unified Judicial System recently released a new infographic highlighting women in Pennsylvania's judiciary. As of last month, women comprise thirty-two percent of the Commonwealth's active judges. The press release notes, "On the state’s appellate courts, three of the current six justices on the Supreme Court are women, and a majority of judges serving on both the Superior Court (71 percent) and Commonwealth Court (88 percent) are women."

In addition to recognizing women currently serving on the bench, the image also features historical trailblazers in the state's courts, including Hon. Sara M. Soffel who, in 1930, became the first woman appointed as a judge in PA; Hon. Juanita Kidd Stout, the first Black woman elected to a state supreme court; and Chief Justice Debra Todd who recently became the first woman to serve as Pennsylvania's chief justice.

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) 2023 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