Top Pennsylvania Disciplinary Cases of 2024
Each January, we review the disciplinary decisions from the previous year and identify a list of the cases of greatest interest. We look for cases that involve unusual or remarkable fact situations, that involve interpretation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the rules and procedures governing disciplinary proceedings, and cases examining issues arising from technology or emerging patterns in the practice of law. The following cases caught our eye in 2024:
- Michael Eric Adler, among other matters, pursued a case against a pet food company in which he repeatedly misstated the chemistry of the products at issue in social media posts, accusing the company of producing unsafe products and of stonewalling him, when he did not understand the chemistry explained to him by counsel for the company. Read more here.
- Lesley Rae Childers-Potts agreed to a suspension for two years based on her conduct while serving as a county District Attorney. She failed to diligently prosecute cases and to take other actions necessary to discharge her duties in four cases. Three of these resulted in court orders dismissing proceedings due to the failure of the District Attorney’s office to diligently proceed with the cases or file required documents. At times, she was the only attorney in the District Attorney’s office.
- Robert Scott Clewell admitted to an extensive pattern of misconduct including neglect, misrepresentation of the status of cases, and failure to earn or refund fees. He asserted that his misconduct was “contextualized” by a pattern of depression and anxiety that prevented him from taking necessary actions. The Board engaged in an extensive discussion of mental health issues and whether these factors are mitigating under the terms of prior cases involving mental disability defenses. Read more here.
- J. Conor Corcoran was retained by an imprisoned client to represent him in a police brutality case. When the client’s son was killed by a police officer, Corcoran filed a lawsuit naming the client individually and as administrator of his son’s estate as plaintiffs although he had not spoken to or been retained by the client regarding that issue and no estate had been opened. Read more here.
- Emeka Igwe was found to have charged a clearly excessive fee. He asserted a claim for both a flat fee of $40,000 for services to obtain the proceeds of a child’s special needs trust, which was awarded to the client without any efforts on his part, and a 40% contingent fee for a suit against the child’s father should he assert a claim to the trust which the father did not. Igwe received a public reprimand.
- Steven Ostroff rented a property to a pizza business that fell behind on rent. He terminated the lease and took possession. The business owner reached an agreement to sell the assets of the business and retained Ostroff to draft the sales agreement. Ostroff prepared a document naming himself as the seller. He received and kept the proceeds of the sale. Read more here.
- Nathaniel Edmond Strasser appeared at a preliminary hearing on behalf of a client at which a police officer skilled in drug detection noticed signs of cocaine use in his appearance and behavior. After being confronted about this, he tested positive for cocaine. At his disciplinary hearing in which he represented himself, he denied being addicted, and in his cross-examination of the trooper who recognized his symptoms, he suggested cocaine use “increases your awareness.” Read more here.
- Robert Philip Tuerk sought reinstatement from disbarment. The Disciplinary Board conducted a searching examination of the issue of his rehabilitation. It found that he “leaves a trail of tribunals over many years who have found that he mischaracterizes his discipline, fails to accept responsibility, and is not credible.” It found that, far from accepting responsibility for his past misconduct, he would often “soft pedal” and minimize it. For this and other reasons, reinstatement was denied.
- William J. Weiss was suspended for a year and a day on consent. After the effective date of his suspension, he engaged in prohibited law-related activities when he appeared at three court conferences, one of which he was introduced by another attorney representing the client as his assistant. For this conduct, and due to substantial aggravating circumstances, he was suspended for five years.
- Andrew Scott Ziegler agreed to a suspension for one year and one day after admitting that he represented clients on the side in violation of the terms of his employment by a law firm, failed to inform the firm of his practice on the side, and created duplicate records to conceal the practice and to divert fees into his own accounts.
- The Court issued an opinion in the following case that is for an unnamed attorney. In a decision dated October 24, 2024, in the case of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dismissed a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney and held that a petition for attorney fees requesting clearly excessive fees did not violate the prohibition on such fees of Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, nor did it constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d). Read more here.
Allegheny County Attorney Suspended Over Failure to Consult on Appeal
By
Order dated November 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended Pittsburgh attorney Milton E. Raiford for one year and one day. Raiford was disbarred by the Supreme Court in 1997 and reinstated in 2010.
Raiford’s discipline arose from a criminal case in which he represented a client with offenses related to controlled substances. He negotiated a plea to those charges, and the client was sentenced to imprisonment for two to four years. The client’s fiancée contacted Raiford multiple times expressing the client’s desire to appeal. He responded that if the client appealed, “he will lose and be exposed to 7½ years in prison from the door. [The client] is a child spoiled by his mom who lives a child’s life who always latches on to someone like you.” He also received inquiries from the client’s mother. He did not communicate with the client himself about his desire to appeal, file an appeal within the time allowed, or withdraw his appearance.
The client filed a
pro se appeal with the Superior Court two days after expiration of the appeal period. The Superior Court ordered the prothonotary to record Raiford’s appearance as counsel and issued a rule for Raiford to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed as untimely. He failed to respond to the rule to show cause, so the Superior Court issued a second rule. He addressed that rule with a letter explaining that he had been contacted by the client’s mother but not by the client, that he had not been retained for appeal, and that he saw no reason why the appeal should not be quashed. The Superior Court remanded the matter to the Court of Common Pleas for a determination of whether Raiford had abandoned his client. After hearing, the trial court determined that Raiford did abandon his client and appointed new counsel who, after consultation with the client, discontinued the appeal.
Raiford did not help himself with his response to the disciplinary inquiry. The Disciplinary Board found that he failed to respond meaningfully to the DB-7 Request for Statement of Respondent’s Position or to provide records requested by Disciplinary Counsel. The Board concluded that his testimony at the disciplinary hearing was inaccurate though not deceptive.
The Disciplinary Board found that his conduct in the underlying case involved violation of several Rules of Professional Conduct relating to diligence, failure to consult and communicate, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and improper handling of funds received as his fee. Based on the circumstances including his prior record of a disbarment and a recent public reprimand, the Disciplinary Board recommended that he be suspended for nine months which would not have required him to petition and prove his fitness for reinstatement. However, the Supreme Court suspended him for one year and one day which will require him to undergo a reinstatement proceeding.
ABA Journal Lists Top Ten Legal Stories of 2024
The
ABA Journal has published its annual list of the
top ten legal stories from its articles from the past year. In brief, the following are the 2024 stories cited by the
Journal:
1. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that states cannot ban guns in public facilities like banks, hospitals, and churches but refused to extend that prohibition to the owners of those facilities.
2. The ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar reveals that
several law schools fell short of its requirement of 75% passage of bar examinations, including a Michigan school whose graduates only passed the bar at a rate of 55.9%, compared to a national average of 90.4%.
3.
US News compiled its list of top law schools with a few shakeups and a couple of ties. The University of Pennsylvania (Carey) Law School maintains its standing in a four-way tie for #4. In fairness to the great state of Michigan, whose cellar-dwelling law school we mentioned in the previous item, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Law School made the list in a tie for #9.
4. A
New York village and town court judge facing a Judicial Conduct investigation into his attendance at the January 6, 2021 rally in Washington D.C. resigned his seat and agreed never to seek judicial office while proclaiming, “I would do it again.”
5. A Black retired judge from Chicago said she was
flying first class when an American Airlines flight attendant accused her of slamming the first-class restroom door and later directed her to use the facilities in the back of the plane.
6. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a
decision to impose a $1.05 million sanction against a national law firm that tried to “sabotage” the District Court’s jurisdiction by asking state courts to order an end to the Federal litigation.
7.
Law firm consultants relate that lawyers reaching retirement age, usually including senior partners, often don’t want to go when their time has come, and many law firms struggle to enforce their retirement policies and lack any sort of plan for older lawyers.
8. The
state court judge appointed to preside in the Georgia racketeering case against President Donald Trump once worked for Fani T. Willis, the current Fulton County, Georgia district attorney who obtained the indictment.
9. A
partner at Duane Morris in Chicago was ousted from the firm after his wife was found dead in a stairwell and her parents accused him of domestic violence.
10. A
seventeen-year-old who enrolled in law school at age thirteen has beaten her brother’s record to become the youngest person to pass the California bar exam.
Hot-tubbing, Coffee Badging, and MDM: Law Professors Identify New Words in Legal Lexicon
Each year, a team of law professors led by University of California, Berkeley School of Law Professor of Legal Writing Margaret Wu and William C. Burton, the creator of Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, get together to identify new words or phrases that have entered into the practice of law. In 2022 they flagged “meme stock,” referring to viral popularity of a company due to heightened social media interest, and in 2023 they recognized “hallucination” for a nonexistent legal authority produced by defective artificial intelligence (AI) research.
The group has compiled a
new list of terms that
caught on in 2024. The new arrivals to the lexicon include:
Hot-tubbing: When experts for both sides meet with the judge for a discussion on the record to help clarify the issues and promote settlement
Coffee badging: When a home-based employee shows up to work for a minimal period of time to satisfy in-office work requirements
Word salad: A nonsensical stream of disconnected verbiage
Cybersmear: Online defamation, usually posted anonymously
AI washing: Misleading advertising regarding the effectiveness of an artificial intelligence product (Related terms for bad output from AI research include “slop” and “sea of junk.”)
MDM: Misinformation (the unintentional sharing of false information), disinformation (the intentional use of false information to deceive), and malinformation (the use of true facts arranged or presented in a way that creates false impressions or conclusions)
Professor Wu explained, “We go through and try to find words that we think are interesting and seem to be growing in popularity and words that we think would be helpful for both practicing lawyers as well as legal scholars to be aware of.”
Mr. Burton expressed his thanks to the committee, saying, “I am delighted the profession now has a highly qualified academic body which evaluates new words and expressions in law each year and records them for posterity.”
