Seven Pennsylvania Lawyers Publicly Reprimanded in March
On March 27, 2025, Public Reprimands
were administered to seven Pennsylvania lawyers. As always, each was livestreamed via the
Board’s YouTube channel.
Two of those seven individuals received Public Reprimands based on criminal convictions.
Paul M. Schofield, Jr. of Chadds Ford, Delaware County consented to administration of a reprimand based on his conviction of assault in a court in Wilmington, Delaware. While drinking in a bar, he got into an argument with a friend and pushed or shouldered him backwards. The friend’s head struck the floor, suffering a brain injury that proved fatal.
Schofield was indicted on charges of Criminally Negligent Homicide and Assault in the Second Degree and pled guilty to one count of Assault in the Third Degree, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to incarceration for one year, suspended pending completion of one year of probation, payment of a fine of $1,000, restitution of $19,004, and terms relating to no contact with the victim’s family and substance abuse evaluation and treatment. He stipulated that his conduct was cause for discipline under
RPC 8.4(b), committing a criminal act that reflects on fitness, and
Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(1), conviction of a crime. The Joint Petition set forth a long list of mitigating factors including remorse, a record free of discipline or criminal convictions, and the fact that the incident consisted of a single action. He consented to the imposition of a Public Reprimand.
Douglas Joseph Bruno of Wayne, Chester County, entered into a Joint Petition agreeing to a Public Reprimand based on his guilty plea arising from an automobile accident.
Bruno rear-ended another vehicle at a stoplight, and when the other driver approached his window, he pulled out and fled the scene. Police officers followed a trail of debris to his residence and found his damaged vehicle in the garage of his house. Upon making contact, the officers observed that he was slurring his words, unsteady on his feet, and moving slowly.
He was charged with one misdemeanor and three summary offenses: Accident Involving Damage to Attended Vehicle or Property; Failure to Stop and Give Information and Render Aid; Careless Driving; and Driving at Safe Speed. He pled guilty to one count of Accident Involving Damage to Attended Vehicle or Property, and was sentenced to one year of probation, a $500.00 fine, a drug and alcohol evaluation followed by recommended treatment, and no contact with the victim or his family members.
The Joint Petition stipulated that Bruno’s conduct was cause for discipline under
RPC 8.4(b), criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer;
RPC 8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and
Pa.R.D.E 203(b)(1), conviction of a crime. After a review of relevant caselaw, the parties recommended that Public Reprimand should be imposed. The Board agreed with this recommendation, and the Public Reprimand was administered.
Alex Jones Lawyer Data Breach Suspension Reduced
A Connecticut judge reduced the suspension of a lawyer who represented Infowars celebrity Alex Jones in a defamation action, and was found to have released confidential information to a lawyer for Jones in another matter.
Lawyer
Norm Pattis represented Jones in a defamation action brought by families of students killed in the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Jones claimed the shooting was a hoax. Members of the victims’ families sued and won a verdict for $965 million.
Pattis’s ethical problems grew out of the release of confidential information, including medical records of the plaintiffs. During trial, the court issued a protective order concerning this sensitive personal and confidential information that the defendants had obtained through the discovery process. The order limited use of the information to counsel of record and others involved in the preparation and litigation of the case. Pattis directed his firm’s staff to release the information to a lawyer representing Jones in another matter. That lawyer then provided the records to a Texas lawyer for Jones in a similar case, and a paralegal with that firm released them to opposing counsel.
The trial court found that Pattis had violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct and entered an order suspending him from the practice of law for six months. On appeal, the Appellate Court
vacated the decision of the trial court, ruling that several of the court’s findings of violations were not supported by the evidence. The Appellate Court remanded the matter with instructions to conduct a new disciplinary hearing before a different judge.
On March 12, 2025, Judge Robin L. Wilson issued a
new decision based on the Appellate Court’s conclusions. Judge Wilson traced the history of the litigation and the release of information and concluded, “Given the highly litigious nature of this case, Pattis should have been on heightened alert and duty that the information which was the subject of the protective order had to be handled with the utmost care.” However, the court found:
There is clear and convincing evidence that Pattis was aware of his obligations under the clear and unambiguous terms of the protective order issued by the court. Yet, through his failure to act prudently, the plaintiffs’ [highly] sensitive and [confidential] information, which should have been safeguarded and which was also protected by the court order, was carelessly passed around from one unauthorized person to another, without regard for the protective order, and with no effort [by Pattis] to safeguard the . . . plaintiffs’ sensitive, confidential documents.
Noting that the information passed along nearly found its way into a livestreamed procedure in Texas, the decision states, “In addition to the actual harm the plaintiffs suffered by the unauthorized dissemination of the medical and other records, the potential harm is stunning.” She concluded, “Simply put, given his experience, there is no acceptable excuse for his misconduct. Pattis is a well-known attorney who handles high-profile cases on a regular basis.”
The new order found that Pattis had violated
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 [competence], 5.1(b) [reasonable effort to ensure compliance of a lawyer under supervision], 5.1(c) [responsibility for another lawyer’s violation], and 8.4(4) [conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice]. Based on these findings, the court directed that Pattis be suspended for a period of two weeks within the next six months. Pattis was given the option of informing the court which two weeks he would serve his suspension.
Despite the massive reduction of the discipline imposed, Pattis
expressed intent to further appeal the disposition.
Prosecutor Suspended for Watching Jury Deliberations
An Oklahoma prosecutor
was suspended for six months by the state Supreme Court based on a finding that he watched the jury in a case he had tried deliberate for two hours on a closed-circuit video screen. In an
Opinion dated March 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma suspended attorney Isaac Seth Brantley Shields.
Shields was an Assistant District Attorney and Chief of Criminal Prosecutions for District 12, consisting of Craig, Mayes, and Rogers Counties. He was the lead prosecutor in a first-degree murder trial. As a carryover of COVID-safety protocols, the district court judge placed the jury deliberations in an adjacent courtroom rather than the smaller, confined jury deliberation room. The courtroom where the jury deliberated was equipped with three security cameras. The video feed from the courtroom cameras could be monitored from a locked security office, with no audio available. The video feed was transmitted to a large monitor and people with access to the room could switch between cameras and zoom in and out. The video quality of the cameras was almost high definition, such that facial expressions and hand gestures were visible on screen, but did not have the capacity to zoom in enough to read documents.
During the jury’s deliberations, Shields entered and left the security room several times. He claimed that he was asked in by officers due to a security situation which they denied, saying the security situation occurred hours later. Shields testified that he remained because of curiosity about what was taking the jury so long and because he had nothing else to do. During this time, he manipulated the cameras to zoom in and out, discussed with his second chair and the security officers his observations and conclusions based upon what he could see of the jury, and engaged in text messages about what he was seeing with his team. He asked his inexperienced second seat counsel to come into the room as well. At one point the jury sent a question to the judge, and he returned to the courtroom and spoke about the matter without revealing he had been watching the deliberations. The security officers subsequently notified their chief of what happened, and an investigation by the District Attorney’s office ensued. Upon his return from a scheduled vacation, Shields was interviewed about the incident and made false statements about the reason he entered the security office, the amount of time he observed the jury, and what he was able to see. He was suspended by the office and
later resigned.
At Shields’ disciplinary hearing, a defense attorney testified that he had previously confronted Shields for eavesdropping on jury deliberations in Tulsa County in 2017 and warned him that it was improper to do so. Shields maintained in the disciplinary proceeding that he had not violated the law although an
Oklahoma statute declares it a felony to listen to or observe grand jury proceedings.
The Supreme Court stated, “An assistant district attorney is a minister of justice, second only to a judge. But instead of behaving accordingly, Respondent's actions take us into the dark, unseen, ugly, shocking nightmare vision of a prosecutor who loves victory more than he loves justice . . . Respondent's behavior is precisely the type that undermines public trust in the legal system and profession. The privacy of jury deliberations is sacrosanct. The importance of preserving the sanctity of jury proceedings is monumental. As such, the discipline imposed must reflect to the public how seriously we treat this misconduct.” It found that this conduct violated Oklahoma
Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) [criminal act reflecting on fitness], 8.4(c) [conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation], and 8.4(d) [conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice], as well as an Oklahoma rule governing disciplinary proceedings. After reviewing mitigating and aggravating factors and relevant case law, the Supreme Court ordered that Shields be suspended for six months.
Florida Lawyer Listed Irish Pub as Office Address
A Florida lawyer who failed to show for criminal court dates has been disbarred after a search for his whereabouts led disciplinary authorities to, among other places, an Irish pub.
Daryl Bobby Fenton was disbarred by Order of the Florida Supreme Court dated February 6, 2025. The Court accepted the
report of a referee who found that Fenton entered an appearance on behalf of a criminal defendant at a time when he was suspended for failure to complete continuing education requirements. He filed a petition for reinstatement which stated he did not practice in Florida, just days after that entry of appearance. He then filed a second entry of appearance but failed to show up on behalf of the client at a hearing. The judge continued the hearing and tried to contact Fenton, without success. When he failed to appear for the resumed hearing, the judge appointed a public defender to represent the client and referred the matter to the Florida Bar for investigation.
When Bar investigators sought to contact Fenton at the address listed in
his Florida registration, they learned it was the location of the
Auld Dubliner Irish Pub and Kitchen where he was not authorized to receive mail and certainly didn’t maintain an office. His home address led to a
high-end condo complex popular with “influencers,” but he had since been evicted. Investigators never succeeded in contacting him, and he never responded to any of the Bar’s communications.
The referee found that Fenton had violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct relating to misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, competence, diligence, communication, and Bar rules regarding failure to respond. The referee found several aggravating factors and that the only mitigating factors were lack of a prior record and inexperience in practice. It comes as no great surprise that Fenton did not respond to or contest the referee’s report, and the Supreme Court disbarred him.
Perhaps he did not quite apprehend the meaning of “admission to the bar.”
