Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 65218
Attorney Name Peck, Brent Eric
DBP Docket No. 200 DB 2003
Supreme Court Docket No. 1024 DD No. 3
County Fayette
Disciplinary Counsel Cory John Cirelli
Counsel for Respondent Richard H. Lindner
Decision Date 2006-12-20
Effective Date 2007-01-19
Case Digest Respondent was charged, initially, with RPC violations for his misappropriation of $2,704.66 entrusted to him by a client, who intended that the money be used to pay a restitution obligation in a criminal matter, per Pa.R.Crim.P. 546. Respondent failed to make the payment and failed to attend the court date for that purpose. Respondent also lied to the client about having escrowed the entrusted funds. He then failed to reimburse the client for one year and did so only because the client obtained a judgment against Respondent. The hearing committee recommended that Respondent be disbarred. Respondent, who had failed to file a brief to the hearing committee, requested a 30-day extension to file exceptions. His request was denied by the Disciplinary Board. Respondent filed a petition to reopen the record, which was denied by the Board. The Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for five years. Respondent filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. The Court remanded the matter to the hearing committee to reopen the record for the purpose of taking evidence, pursuant to ODC v. Braun, about Respondentís substance abuse. At the time of the remand hearing, the parties stipulated that the hearing committee should also hear evidence of Respondentís criminal conviction for DUI, so the matters were consolidated. The committee concluded that Respondent met his burden of proof on the Braun issue and recommended a three-year stayed suspension. Both parties took exception to the report and recommendation of the hearing committee. The Board agreed that Respondent is entitled to Braun mitigation and recommended a two-year suspension. Respondent filed a Petition for Review. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the Board and suspended Respondent for a period of two years. Respondentís prior disciplinary history consists of two private reprimands administered in 2003, which arose out of three separate complaints. Respondent was charged, initially, with RPC violations for his misappropriation of $2,704.66 entrusted to him by a client, who intended that the money be used to pay a restitution obligation in a criminal matter, per Pa.R.Crim.P. 546. Respondent failed to make the payment and failed to attend the court date for that purpose. Respondent also lied to the client about having escrowed the entrusted funds. He then failed to reimburse the client for one year and did so only because the client obtained a judgment against Respondent. The hearing committee recommended that Respondent be disbarred. Respondent, who had failed to file a brief to the hearing committee, requested a 30-day extension to file exceptions. His request was denied by the Disciplinary Board. Respondent filed a petition to reopen the record, which was denied by the Board. The Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for five years. Respondent filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. The Court remanded the matter to the hearing committee to reopen the record for the purpose of taking evidence, pursuant to ODC v. Braun, about Respondentís substance abuse. At the time of the remand hearing, the parties stipulated that the hearing committee should also hear evidence of Respondentís criminal conviction for DUI, so the matters were consolidated. The committee concluded that Respondent met his burden of proof on the Braun issue and recommended a three-year stayed suspension. Both parties took exception to the report and recommendation of the hearing committee. The Board agreed that Respondent is entitled to Braun mitigation and recommended a two-year suspension. Respondent filed a Petition for Review. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the Board and suspended Respondent for a period of two years. Respondentís prior disciplinary history consists of two private reprimands administered in 2003, which arose out of three separate complaints.
Rule Violation(s) RPC 1.3, 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 8.4(c); Pa.R.D.E. 214(i) and 203(b)(1)
Discipline Imposed Two year suspension
Points of Law The Board concurred with the hearing committeeís decision to consolidate Respondentís pending criminal conviction matter with the remanded petition for discipline.
Report/Opinion Download