Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 83640
Attorney Name Iulo, Dennis J.
DBP Docket No. 25 DB 2001
Supreme Court Docket No. 560 D.D. No. 3
County Out of State
Disciplinary Counsel Anthony P. Sodroski
Counsel for Respondent Samuel C. Stretton
Decision Date 2001-02-21
Effective Date
Case Digest Respondent was convicted in New Jersey on two counts of knowing misapplication of clients’ funds for conduct that occurred in 1981 and 1982. As a result of the conviction, in 1989 the Supreme Court of New Jersey permanently disbarred Respondent. Matter of Iulo, 115 N.J. 498, 559 A.2d 1349 (1989). Thereafter, Respondent applied for admission to the Pennsylvania bar and was admitted on July 8, 1999. On December 28, 1999, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a rule to SHOW cause why Respondent should not be subject to reciprocal disbarment. A majority of the Court held that because the criminal conduct occurred 19 years earlier and the evidence in the criminal proceeding showed that Respondent was an inept bookkeeper rather than a self-interested thief, Respondent currently posed no threat to the public and his practicing law would not tarnish the integrity of the courts of the Commonwealth. Hence, the imposition of reciprocal discipline “would result in grave injustice” under Pa.R.D.E. 216(c)(3). In re Iulo, 766 A.2d 335 (Pa. 2001).
Rule Violation(s)
Discipline Imposed None. Rule to Show Cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed is DISCHARGED.
Points of Law Supreme Court has discretion to impose greater, lesser, or no reciprocal discipline. A determination of reciprocal discipline focuses on the legitimate goals of the disciplinary systems in the original discipline state and the reciprocal state. Deterrence is a considerable factor in matters of reciprocal discipline.
Report/Opinion not available