Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 46757
Attorney Name Beill , Peter Paul
DBP Docket No. 97 and 113 DB 2009
Supreme Court Docket No. 1515 DD No. 3
County Dauphin
Disciplinary Counsel Edwin W. Frese Jr.
Counsel for Respondent Robert H. Davis, Jr.
Decision Date 2011-05-04
Effective Date 2009-05-26
Case Digest This was a consolidated reinstatement from inactive status and disciplinary case. Beill was transferred to inactive status for failure to comply with his CLE requirements by Order of 8/4/03 when he was practicing in Blair County. He applied for reinstatement on 6/26/09, and revealed his Blair County 2004 criminal conviction for Sale or Transfer of Firearms, an F3, in his Reinstatement Questionnaire. Beill had pleaded nolo contendre to one count of Sale or Transfer of Firearms on 7/9/04, and was sentenced on 10/15/04 to imprisonment from 6 to 48 months. Beill did not report his conviction to the Board, claiming that Disciplinary Counsel knew of his arrest and that the Prothonotary would report it. Drug possession and possession with intent, and eight other counts of Sale or Transfer of Firearms were nol prossed. Between 12/6/02 and 1/23/03, Beill had purchased 9 handguns for a convicted Philadelphia drug pusher who could not purchase them himself, although Beill claimed at the disciplinary hearing that he purchased all nine guns legally to go shooting in the woods with his girlfriend/secretary and gave only one to the drug dealer. His testimony was found not credible. He further claimed that he purchased the guns while he was “crazy out of control” on alcohol and drugs. However, that testimony was also found not credible and was inconsistent with the presentence report and other circumstances, which failed to indicate any problem with drugs or alcohol. While Beill presented expert testimony from his treating physician and an addictions counselor that there was a causal link between Beill’s criminal conduct and his loss of control due to drugs and alcohol, neither expert had any direct knowledge of Beill’s use of drugs and alcohol and relied solely upon what he had told them, which was not supported by any credible evidence. The Hearing Committee recommended a 4-year suspension, retroactive to when the Supreme Court referred the criminal conviction to the Board. However, the Disciplinary Board recommended a 3-year suspension, retroactive to the date Beill filed his petition for reinstatement and revealed his criminal conviction.
Rule Violation(s) Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(1) and RPC 8.4(b)
Discipline Imposed Reinstatement Denied, suspension for 3 years, retroactive
Points of Law Possibility that Disciplinary Counsel knew or should have known of the conviction and that the Clerk of Court was supposed to report the conviction did not excuse the defendant’s obligation under Pa.R.D.E. 214(a) to report his conviction to the Disciplinary Board.
Report/Opinion Download