Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 71718
Attorney Name Lemieux , James Michael
DBP Docket No. 143 DB 2009
Supreme Court Docket No. 1527 DD No. 3
County Out of State
Disciplinary Counsel Mark J. Weitzman
Counsel for Respondent None
Decision Date 2010-02-17
Effective Date 2010-03-17
Case Digest By Order filed on August 3, 2006, the Supreme Court of Ohio directed, in part, that Respondent's resignation as attorney and counselor at law was accepted as a "resignation with disciplinary action pending." The effect of that Order was the same as if the Supreme Court of Ohio had ordered that the Respondent be permanently disbarred. At that time, a sixteen-count disciplinary proceeding was pending against Respondent, which included charges of theft of client funds, forging the signature of clients on general releases and on settlement checks, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law after he was suspended by the Supreme Court of Ohio on an interim basis. On May 31, 2006, Respondent was convicted in Ohio, after entering a plea of guilty, of three counts of Theft and two counts of Forgery as to his misappropriation of funds entrusted to him on behalf of three clients. Respondent admitted misappropriating almost $230,000 of client funds. He was sentenced to three years' incarceration. By Order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, dated March 20, 2007, Respondent was disbarred on consent based upon a Joint Petition for Disbarment and Affidavit executed by Respondent on March 13, 2007. Respondent did not report the acceptance of his resignation by the Supreme Court of Ohio and his disbarment by the Court of Appeals in Maryland to the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board, as required by Rule 216(e), Pa.R.D.E. Respondent filed two "Briefs" in response to the Order and ODC filed a reply to both. Respondent did not address any of the three elements in Rule 216(c), Pa.R.D.E., that could prevent the Supreme Court from imposing identical or comparable discipline in a reciprocal discipline proceeding. By Order dated February 17, 2010, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an Order that, based upon Respondent being disbarred on consent from the practice of law in Ohio and Maryland and upon consideration of the responses filed, Respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Pennsylvania.
Rule Violation(s)
Discipline Imposed Reciprocal disbarment
Points of Law Reciprocal discipline will be imposed when a Respondent does not demonstrate or the Supreme Court does not find on the face of the record upon which the discipline is predicated that one of the three elements of Rule 216(c), Pa.R.D.E., exists.
Report/Opinion not available