||Respondent, who was court-appointed to represent Mr. Gary Jackson, was successful in having the PCRA court reinstate Mr. Jacksonís direct appeal rights, nunc pro tunc. However, Respondent failed to file an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on Mr. Jacksonís behalf. Respondent also failed to respond to Mr. Jacksonís letters and to advise Mr. Jackson that Respondent had failed to file an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Mitigating factors in determining the discipline to impose were Respondentís cooperation, remorse, and acknowledgment of wrongdoing. An aggravating factor was Respondentís record of discipline, consisting of two informal admonitions and a private reprimand.
A three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board unanimously approved a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent, in which Respondent consented to a Public Censure. On March 26, 2008, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent.