It is an honor to write this message to you as Chair of the Disciplinary Board. Together with Vice Chair Jerry M. Lehocky, I want to assure each of you that our Board is committed to ensuring the Pennsylvania attorney regulatory system remains one of the finest in the nation. This Board is charged with protecting the public, maintaining the integrity of the legal profession, and safeguarding the reputation of the courts. We are grateful for the opportunity to lead such a distinguished organization.

I wish to express my appreciation to former Board Chair James C. Haggerty and former Vice Chair John F. Cordisco for their mentorship and dedication to the profession throughout their tenure on the Board and particularly their service in Board leadership. Their dedication to our mission was integral to the Board’s success in the recent years – and particularly during the pandemic. Although their service on the Board is now complete, their work will endure for years to come. 

Please welcome our new Board members Robert J. Mongeluzzi and Shohin H. Vance, whose terms commenced on April 1, 2021.  

As you read in our March newsletter, now-former Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor announced his retirement transition plan, which included transitioning the role of Chief Justice to Justice Max Baer effective April 1, 2021, while maintaining his status as a Justice of the Supreme Court until his retirement in December. I thank Justice Saylor for his distinguished service on the Supreme Court for the past 23 years and for his dedication and commitment serving as Chief Justice since 2015. Chief Justice Baer has been a distinguished member of the bench for more than three decades. I congratulate Chief Justice Baer on his new leadership role. It is an honor to serve as Disciplinary Board Chair under such an esteemed bench.

Our Well-Being section of this newsletter focuses on Well-Being Week in Law which will be held the week of May 3. We encourage all of our readers to participate in the events which will focus on physical, spiritual, occupational & intellectual, social, and emotional well-being. After the events of the past year, we all could use a reminder to focus on our well-being. 

Stay well,
Jack P. Goodrich
Board Chair

March 2021

March 2021

Upcoming Public Proceedings

Vacancies

Rules

The Judicial Role in Regulating Attorney Conduct

In January, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a public reprimand for misconduct in a dispute regarding an estate. (In the Matter of Lisa Fisher, Respondent, Appellate Case No. 2020-0000226) Ms. Fisher, admitted pro hac vice in South Carolina, had filed “a series of frivolous pleadings, motions and appeals…and protracted the related litigation for over ten years….” Fisher was sanctioned for violating the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, which provides, inter alia, that “[i]f the court imposes a sanction on an attorney in violation of the provisions of this section, the court shall report its findings to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct.” The mandatory reporting provision of the Act is rare. Indeed, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, judges have discretion in deciding whether to make a referral to disciplinary authorities.

In Pennsylvania, Rule 2.15 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, “Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct”, addresses a judge’s responsibilities to report lawyer misconduct.¹ CJC Rule 2.15(B) states that “[a] judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer shall inform the appropriate authority.” The requirement that judges report attorney misconduct is the same as a lawyer’s reporting requirement as set forth in RPC 8.3(a). Comment (1) to CJC Rule 2.15 makes clear that “[t]aking action to address known misconduct is a judge’s obligation,” but “limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent.”

The threshold for triggering the mandatory reporting requirement is high – and appropriately so. Judges should not be concerned that by failing to report every incident of bad behavior by an attorney they run the risk of exposing themselves to discipline. However the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as other considerations, suggests that further analysis is necessary.

CJC Rule 2.15(D) states that “[a] judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.” Comment (2) states that CJC Rule 2.15(D) is not limited to situations where a judge has actual knowledge. The Rule reaches all violations, not just those that raise a substantial question regarding honesty, trustworthiness or fitness. Comment (2) further explains that appropriate actions “include but are not limited to communicating directly with the lawyer who may have committed the violation, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or both.”

In deciding whether the appropriate action under CJC Rule 2.15(D) should include reporting suspected violations to disciplinary authorities, judges should consider that the conduct they are aware of may not be an isolated incident, but may be part of a pattern of behavior. Most lawyers today have geographically diverse practices. Misconduct in one court of common pleas, an appellate court, another state’s court, or a federal court may seem insignificant. If each judge considers the misconduct an aberration and does not report the attorney, disciplinary authorities will not be able to see the existing or emerging pattern of misconduct. Reporting the attorney to disciplinary authorities may also lead the attorney to seek help for issues that may be contributing to the misconduct, such as depression, gambling addiction and substance abuse. As a result, ODC encourages judges who may be on the fence to make a report. Our office is charged with protecting the public. Making the report allows us to undertake an investigation, view the attorney’s behavior in the context of other disciplinary complaints and the attorney’s disciplinary history, and take action, if necessary, to protect the public.
 
Raymond S. Wierciszewski 
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel

Articles of Interest
 

Attorney Well-Being

Well-Being Week in Law – May 3-7

May has long been recognized as Mental Health Awareness Month, and in conjunction with that event, the first week in May – this year, May 3-7 – has been designated by the Institute for Well-Being in Law (IWIL) (formerly named the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being) as Well-Being Week in Law (WWIL).

Organizations such as the American Bar Association (ABA) Law Practice Division’s Attorney Well-Being Committee and the ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Program’s (CoLAP) Well-Being Committee will sponsor a number of events to raise awareness about mental health and encourage action and innovation across the profession to improve well-being. WWIL in 2020 included sessions on physical, spiritual, intellectual, occupational, social, and emotional well-being. Topics addressed include:

• Physical well-being: Diet, sleep, stress management, substance abuse recovery;
• Spiritual well-being: Finding a sense of purpose and meaning, aligning life and work to values;
• Occupational and intellectual well-being: Learning and development, personal satisfaction and growth, financial stability;
• Social well-being: building connections and support networks, contributing to groups;
• Emotional well-being: Understanding, identifying, and using emotions, getting help.

The organization has not published a specific agenda for the 2021 observation yet, but interested persons can sign up for notifications at this link.
 

---

From the Pennsylvania Bar Association 
 

 

We Want To Hear From You...

Resources

FAQs - For the Public	Annual Report	Recent Discipline
FAQs - For Attorneys	Rules	Discipline Statistics