Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 33441
Attorney Name DeSimone , Mark Anthony
DBP Docket No. 11 DB 2002
Supreme Court Docket No. 719 DD No. 3
County Out of State
Disciplinary Counsel William R. Friedman
Counsel for Respondent John E. Quinn
Decision Date 2009-12-16
Effective Date 2009-12-16
Case Digest On February 2004 Petitioner was suspended for a period of two years and eight months retroactive to January 31, 2002. In August 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reinstatement which was ultimately denied on the basis that he had failed to satisfy the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements. In March 2008 Petitioner filed a second Petition for Reinstatement. At the reinstatement hearing held on December 18, 2008, Petitioner testified on his own behalf, presented the testimony of two witnesses and submitted four letters of reference. The Hearing Committee recommended that the Petition be denied. The Hearing Committee found that Petitioner did not provide information regarding his investment and ownership in a company known as HIS. The Hearing Committee further found that Petitioner failed to disclose a Confession of Judgment that had been entered against him. ODC did not oppose reinstatement. The Disciplinary Board found that Petitioner had fulfilled his CLE requirements; kept apprised with the current state of the law; engaged in real estate development projects in Florida and in other business activities; volunteered his time in charitable and social service activities; expressed sincere remorse for his misconduct and did not engage in the practice of law during his suspension. The Board further found that Petitionerís explanation for his failure to disclose his investment in HIS, his ownership in HIS, LLC and the Confession of Judgment was reasonable and honest and did not constitute a lack of moral qualifications. The Board recommended that Petitioner be reinstated.
Rule Violation(s)
Discipline Imposed Reinstatement granted
Points of Law Attorney who petitions for reinstatement has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in the Commonwealth. Petitioner has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that his resumption of practice within the Commonwealth will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest.
Report/Opinion Download