|
From the Chair
 As my tenure as Chair nears its end, I want to convey the great pride I have in the efforts of this organization in service of the Commonwealth and its diverse communities. The work of the Disciplinary Board is never simple and rarely easy, but its mission is integral to the fabric of our esteemed profession.
I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the Board – particularly Vice-Chair Gretchen A. Mundorff – the Board’s staff, the volunteer Hearing Committee Members, and the Board’s partner Court agencies for their dedication to professional integrity and public service. I would also like to express my most sincere gratitude to Chief Justice Debra Todd and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, for the truly unique honor and privilege given to me to serve our Commonwealth as Chair of the Disciplinary Board.
The Board’s 2024 Annual Report, published yesterday, Thursday, March 20th, details the extraordinary labors of the Board, through its Board Members, Hearing Committee Members, and staff throughout the course of another demanding but gratifying year. To David S. Senoff and Shohin H. Vance, the next Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board, respectively, I offer my fervent support as you lead the Board into the coming year with both fortitude and compassion. I certainly look forward to the Board’s continued endeavors in service of the highest standards of professionalism and ethical law practice. The Board is most certainly in capable hands.
My wish to each and every member of the Bar of this Commonwealth is for a healthy, happy, and productive 2025.
With appreciation and esteem,
John C. Rafferty, Jr.
Board Chair
|
|
|
|
Technology Update Reminder
UJS Portal Password Policy Change
In December 2024, to improve security, the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (UJS) changed their password policy. Passwords now must be at least fourteen characters in length and contain at least three of the following:
- one uppercase letter
- one lowercase letter
- one number
- one special character (e.g., ! @ # $ % ^ & *)
What should I do now? If you have not updated your password since the change went into effect, you will need to do so to continue accessing your UJS Portal account. Log in to your UJS Portal account using your current password and you will be prompted to update your password before continuing to the portal. If you’ve forgotten your current password, click “Forgot my password” on the log-in page.
To limit issues during annual attorney registration, it is suggested that you log in now to update your password. For further guidance, please visit the UJS Portal Help Page.
|
|
|
|
Reinstatements
February 2025
Note: The above-listed granted reinstatement matters reflect only those granted by Supreme Court Order. An attorney listed as reinstatement granted, but whose current license status does not reflect reinstatement, has yet to submit the fees necessary to finalize reinstatement.
|
|
|
Disciplinary Board News
Disciplinary Board Issues 2024 Annual Report
The Disciplinary Board has issued its Annual Report for 2024. Below are a few highlights from the report.
The Disciplinary Board adjudicated nineteen cases in 2024, fourteen disciplinary and five reinstatement matters. But the activities of the Board go much farther than just deciding cases. Activities covered in the Report include:
- The Rules Committee considers amendments to the various rules that govern disciplinary and professional conduct matters. The Committee assisted the Supreme Court in the issuance of three amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2024.
- The Finance and Personnel Committee oversees the Board’s fiscal operations, administering over $14 million in operating revenue and seventy-seven employees.
- The Communications Committee manages an array of public communications, including preparing the monthly newsletter for a mailing list of over ninety thousand, delivering an effective social media presence, maintaining an extensive website, and outreach to attorneys, the public, and law schools.
- The Education Committee promotes educational opportunities for attorneys, members of the Board and the Hearing Committees, staff, and Respondents’ counsel. It also participates in national organizations and produces educational materials to promote interest in ethics in the legal profession.The work of the Board depends heavily on the volunteer support of 152 attorneys appointed as Hearing Committee members. These volunteers reviewed sixty-one complaint dispositions; held twenty-nine prehearing conferences, twenty disciplinary hearings, and four reinstatement hearings; and filed nineteen Hearing Committee reports.
In 2024, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed twenty-three Petitions for Discipline, twenty-five Joint Petitions for Discipline on Consent, three Petitions for Emergency Temporary Suspension, and five Contempt Petitions. Eleven attorneys filed Petitions for Reinstatement from discipline, four certifications for reinstatement from a suspension for one year or less, and fifty-nine Petitions for Reinstatement from inactive status, retired status, or administrative suspension for less than three years.
Discipline imposed included twenty-four disbarments, thirty-two suspensions, twelve temporary suspensions, twenty-one public reprimands, eight private reprimands, and twenty-six informal admonitions.
Over 74,000 attorneys completed registration in 2024. Of these, 47,335 are active and Pennsylvania-based, 17,148 are active out-of-state, and 9,942 are inactive in- or out-of-state. Eighty-nine percent of the registrations were timely completed by July 1, 2024, and 97% prior to the assessment of the first late fee. Over two thousand new attorneys were admitted to practice, the highest number in the last six years. The number of retired attorneys electing emeritus status grew by ten to a total of forty-eight.
The Board and Hearing Committees conducted and live streamed to the general public eighteen hearings, five oral arguments, and twenty-one public reprimands spanning 135 hours. Viewers streamed a total of 5,417 hours.
The Board continued to expand the coverage and accessibility of its website which recorded 2.9 million user visits.
The Board’s operating revenue (from annual assessments and administrative fees) was $14,561,268. With $13,650,010 in expenses, the Board showed an operating surplus of $911,258. It also earned non-operating income of $998,671 on investments with the Investment Advisory Board, improving its financial condition by a total of $1,909,929 and avoiding further draws on its reserve funds. The annual assessment remains at $275, which is allocated as follows: $195 to the Disciplinary Board, $50 to the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security, and $30 to the IOLTA Board.
In 2024, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel opened 4,421 cases and resolved 4,725, reducing its carryover by 304 cases. In addition to case dispositions, the ODC assisted clients in several ways, such as securing the refund of fees or the return of files, documents, and other property, reestablishing communication between attorney and client and facilitating movement in stagnant cases, facilitating updates to forms, contact information, or documents, and educating attorneys on ethical issues with or without issuance of a letter of education or concern. The ODC opened seven conservatorship matters and obtained the appointment of two conservators. Eleven conservatorship cases remained open at year’s end. In addition, ODC staff presented or participated in several educational activities for law schools and the bar, including fifteen Continuing Legal Education presentations.
Disciplinary Board Publishes Financial Institutions List
As it does on a quarterly basis, the Disciplinary Board has published the list of financial institutions approved by the Supreme Court for the maintenance of fiduciary accounts of attorneys under the terms of Rule 221, Pa.R.D.E.
Some of the institutions on the list are designated as “Platinum Leader Banks—Institutions.” These institutions have made a commitment to support the Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program and increase funding for legal representation of those in need. They pay a net yield at the higher of one percent or seventy-five percent of the Federal Funds Target Rate on all Pennsylvania IOLTA accounts. Lawyers interested in supporting the goal of providing legal access to those of limited means may consider maintaining their client trust and IOLTA accounts with one of these institutions.
|
|
|
Upcoming Public Proceedings
We encourage you to observe our public disciplinary and reinstatement hearings, oral arguments, and public reprimands on the Board’s YouTube channel. You can also view “Upcoming Public Proceedings” at the bottom of the Board’s home page.
Scheduled proceedings begin at 9:30 am unless otherwise noted.
|
|
|
|
Articles of Interest
Lawyer Agrees to Reprimand for Litigation Funding Loan Practice
A Philadelphia lawyer agreed to the imposition of a public reprimand based on stipulated facts establishing that he had advanced funds to clients under arrangements not permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The stipulation established that Jason Fine represented a client in a matter with a reasonable likelihood of settlement in the range of $30,000 to $40,000. The client expressed a need for immediate funds, so Fine drafted a “Lien Purchase Agreement” for her execution which provided for a company named VFS, Inc. to advance $1,500 to the client while receiving a lien for $2,200, plus a $90 surcharge, on her settlement funds. The LPA included language reciting that Fine was not recommending that the client take the advance. Fine failed to reveal to the client that VFS was owned by his father-in-law.
When the case settled twenty days later, Fine deducted the sum of $2,290 from the settlement proceeds in payment of the advance. The LPA also provided that Fine could charge a processing fee of $150, but he waived that charge. He also reduced his contingent fee from thirty-three percent to twenty-five percent, saving the client $3,200.
The client was uncomfortable with the transaction and consulted the Office of the Attorney General, who referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”). In its investigation, the ODC learned that Fine had referred 174 clients to VFS for advances in the previous three years and had made cash advances of his own funds in twenty-three of those cases.
Fine agreed that this conduct violated Rule 1.7(a)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, representing a client where the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest, and RPC 1.8(e), providing financial assistance to a client with pending or contemplated litigation. He agreed to the imposition of a public reprimand which has not yet been scheduled.
Once More with Feeling: New York Judge Resigns for the Second Time after Regaining Seat
An Associate Judge of the Lackawanna City Court, Erie County, New York, resigned for the second time based on his misconduct in conducting a sham hearing in order to dismiss a parking ticket.
Former Judge Louis P. Violanti served on the city court from May 2007 to March 2013. In January 2013, Judge Violanti arranged and presided over a sham proceeding in which no prosecutor was present, and a police officer impersonated the traffic defendant with whom the judge was acquainted. Judge Violanti then dismissed the ticket. The stipulation of facts stated that at a social event the judge met a friend who mentioned he had a pending charge for driving with a suspended vehicle registration. The judge told him he would “take care of it.” He arranged for a police officer assigned to his court to appear as the defendant and engage in a colloquy in which the purported defendant offered documentation establishing that the citation was the result of an insurance error. Neither any prosecutor nor the actual defendant were present. Judge Violanti directed that a transcript of the sham hearing be prepared.
When he learned his conduct was under investigation, Violanti resigned from his seat on the bench, but his resignation did not contain any commitment not to seek judicial office in the future. His resignation deprived the Commission on Judicial Conduct of jurisdiction to impose judicial discipline, which could include a ban from holding future judicial office. As a result of these actions, his license to practice law was suspended for two years in an attorney disciplinary proceeding. He was reinstated to the practice of law in 2016.
In March 2024, the Mayor of Lackawanna reappointed Violanti to a new six-year term on the bench. This reestablished the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Conduct over his status, and the Administrator of the Commission moved quickly to file a new Formal Written Complaint served on August 12, 2024. The Commission denied Violanti’s motion to dismiss, granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment establishing cause for discipline, and set a schedule for briefs and oral argument on the discipline to be imposed. Knowing that the Commission would probably remove him from the bench and probably bar him from holding judicial office in the future, Violanti resigned from his seat effective January 23, 2025. This time, his resignation included an affirmation that he will neither seek nor accept judicial office at any time in the future.
Judge Suspended for Racy TikTok Lip Syncs
A New Jersey Superior Court judge agreed to a three-month suspension without pay after stipulating that his actions in posting a series of lip-sync videos on TikTok violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Gary N. Wilcox admitted that, beginning during the COVID-19 shutdown, he had posted approximately forty videos to TikTok under the alias “Sal Tortorella” in which he lip-synced and acted out various songs, many of which contained lyrics including references to violence, sex, and misogyny. Some of these videos were filmed in his chambers or courtroom, and in some he was wearing his judicial robes at the time. Others were recorded in his bed often in states of inappropriate or inadequate dress.
Wilcox explained that he thought the videos were harmless fun, but he admitted that the conduct violated Canon 1, Rule 1.1 (requiring judges to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the Judiciary may be preserved), Canon 2, Rule 2.1 (requiring judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary), and Canon 5, Rule 5.1(A) (requiring judges to conduct their extrajudicial activities in a manner that would not cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge, demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties).
Witchcraft and Eyes Turning Black: Conviction Reversed over Prosecutor’s Lurid Imagery
The Supreme Court of New Mexico threw out a woman’s murder conviction and barred her retrial based on prosecutorial misconduct in which the prosecutor accused her of witchcraft and made outrageous and inflammatory accusations against her in his arguments.
The fact situation of the case against Desiree Lensegrav was the stuff of tabloid sensation. While at a drug dealer’s house, she encountered the victim, a relative of a man who she contended had sexually assaulted and impregnated her. He ridiculed her and told her he had a video of her at the drug house which he would share with his family to help them win custody of her child. Humiliated, she returned home and told her husband, Aram Montoya, what had happened and told him she wanted him to “kick [the victim’s] ass.” She drove him to the drug house where he engaged in a confrontation with the victim and gripped him in a headlock which resulted in the victim’s strangulation and death. She then drove Montoya and the victim’s body away and assisted in some gruesome attempts to dispose of the body and cover up the murder. All this came to light more than a year later when Montoya trapped her in the house and stabbed her in the neck and back. This resulted in her being airlifted to a hospital and placed in a medically induced coma. While she was out, Montoya was arrested and “threw her under the bus” by telling police the story of the homicide and picturing her as the prime mover. He later told defense interviewers that he did this because he was “mad at her.”
She was brought to trial on several charges including first degree murder. The prosecution proposed to call Montoya as its primary witness but did not do so because he had given conflicting testimony at different times. Instead, the prosecutor in his opening statement said the drug house owner would testify that “Defendant’s eyes turn black with fury and rage,” that he could “feel the wind coming out of her,” and that Montoya was like a zombie under her control. He stated that “she would put menstrual blood concoctions into [Montoya’s] food to control him.” The prosecutor then referred to this as “wanna-be witch magic” and compared her to Cersei Lannister of Game of Thrones. The defense did not object. He then stated that Montoya bought an eight-ball of heroin to commit suicide with heroin and that he “was stripping his soul clean of the horrors of what he did for this wanna-be bruja, witch!” The Court found that the rest of his argument was “similarly rife with hyperbole, grotesqueries, name-calling, and outlandish misstatements of what the evidence would show,” calling Defendant “a worthless mother” and “a drug ho—not my words!” He also stated without evidence that she had boyfriends on the side in the Sheriff’s Office. He repeated many of these arguments in his closing statement and also referred to foul-smelling garments produced from the victim’s body as “the Stench of Death!” The jury convicted Lensegrav on all counts after two hours of deliberation.
The Supreme Court noted that defense counsel objected to none of this conduct, depriving the trial court of an opportunity to rule on the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. The Court characterized the prosecutor’s actions in relating Montoya’s incriminating statements when Montoya was not called as a witness as “egregious misconduct” and “fundamental error” which required vacation of the conviction. It noted that allegations of witchcraft had been adjudicated as outside the bounds of legality as early as 1891. Finding that the prosecutorial misconduct “persisted from the opening statement all the way through rebuttal argument,” the Court found the conduct so prejudicial that retrial was barred on the principle of double jeopardy.
|
|
|
Attorney Well-Being
Penn State Dickinson Law to Host Hybrid Well-Being Event in Partnership with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and the Board of Law Examiners
On Friday, March 21st at 2:30 pm, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania (LCL) and the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners (BLE) will partner with Penn State Dickinson Law to host a hybrid in-person and virtual well-being event, answering questions from current law students. "Raw & Unfiltered: BLE & LCL Answer Your Questions," a ninety-minute event, will be held in-person at Penn State Dickinson Law in Carlisle, PA but is open to all law students virtually.
It is important to note that LCL remains entirely confidential and operates independently from the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners, Disciplinary Board, and other boards of PA's Supreme Court.
Click here to register for this event.
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Publishes 2024 Annual Report
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania (LCL) has published its detailed Annual Report for 2024. The report also includes data from Judges Concerned for Judges of Pennsylvania (JCJ) which is a judges assistance program operating separately from, but under the umbrella of, LCL.
The report explains that, throughout 2024, “629 judges, lawyers, family members, and law students contacted the LCL/JCJ Helplines, including seventy-nine after-hours calls, to request confidential services and support.” LCL also had another outstanding year of well-being education as a record 363 educational programs reached over 25,000 PA legal professionals in addition to 177,634 judges, lawyers, and law students across the United States.
Read the full 2024 report here.
Registration Now Open for May's Well-Being Week in Law
The Institute for Well-Being in Law's (IWIL) annual Well-Being Week in Law returns May 5-9, 2025, aligning with Mental Health Awareness Month. The goal of the celebration is to "raise awareness about mental health and encourage action and innovation across the profession to improve well-being". Any individual, law firm, corporate legal department, government entity, bar association, law school, or other legal organization is invited to participate.
IWIL recently announced the theme for this year's celebration: "The Social Rx: Boosting Well-Being with Connection." Read more about the 2025 theme here on IWIL's website.
Register to participate in the 2025 Well-Being Week in Law here.
Explore the Disciplinary Board's Lawyer Well-Being Webpage
The Disciplinary Board's "Lawyer Well-Being" webpage connects Pennsylvania attorneys with pertinent resources, articles, events, and CLE opportunities to better understand and support their mental health and well-being. To access the Board’s “Lawyer Well-Being” page, visit padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/well-being.
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers is a confidential assistance program for the Pennsylvania legal community and their family members. LCL may not report information about a subject attorney back to the Disciplinary Board.
Confidential 24/7 Helpline: 1-888-999-1941
Last year, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (Pa.R.D.E.) relating to confidentiality of proceedings, providing for three exceptions to the requirement of confidentiality under Pa.R.D.E. 402(d). Included in these exceptions is the allowance for Disciplinary Counsel to make a referral of an attorney to Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania (LCL) and share information as part of the referral. However, it is crucial to note that LCL may not report information about a subject attorney back to the Disciplinary Board. LCL is a confidential assistance program for the Pennsylvania legal community and their family members.
|
|
|
Around the Court
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Recognizes Civic Learning Week
Pennsylvania Chief Justice Debra Todd recently issued a citation formally recognizing the second week of March as Civic Learning Week. Emphasizing the importance of civics education in cultivating informed and engaged citizens, Chief Justice Todd affirms the essential role of schools and educators in facilitating civics education and commends the dedication of the Commonwealth's teachers.
Read the full press release and access the citation here on the UJS website.
PA Courts Honor Women on the Bench
In honor of March's Women's History Month, the Unified Judicial System recently released a new infographic highlighting women judges throughout the Commonwealth. Currently, thirty-four percent of Pennsylvania's judges are women, including Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justices Christine Donohue and Sallie Updyke Mundy. Chief Justice Todd is, notably, the first woman to serve as Chief Justice in the over-three-hundred-year history of the PA Supreme Court.
The President Judges of both the Superior Court and Commonwealth Court are also women: Anne E. Lazarus and Renée Cohn Jubelirer, respectively.
Read the full press release and access a high-resolution version of the the graphic here on the UJS website.
Pennsylvania IOLTA Board Publishes 2024 Annual Report
The Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Board recently published its 2024 Annual Report.
In 2024, the IOLTA Board provided more than $30 million in financial support to thirty-three legal aid organizations, Pennsylvania’s nine law schools, and the Pennsylvania Bar Foundation for the delivery of civil legal aid to low-income Pennsylvanians. Featured in this report is a sub-report on a special six-year grant program financed with a distribution of funds from a 2014 settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Bank of America restricted for foreclosure prevention and community redevelopment legal assistance. The sub-report begins on page 20.
Every attorney in Pennsylvania contributes to the IOLTA Board’s mission through a portion of their annual attorney registration fee. Our Annual Report is distributed widely every year to promote transparency and trust in our administration of funds for civil legal aid. We extend our deepest gratitude to the attorneys and firms that render pro bono legal services to help narrow the justice gap for those who cannot afford the services of a private attorney.
|
|
|
From the Pennsylvania Bar Association
Women’s History Month began as a local celebration in Santa Rosa, California, in 1978. The Education Task Force of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women organized a women’s history week celebration. The group selected the week of March 8th to coincide with International Women’s Day.
In 1980, various women’s groups led by the National Women’s History Alliance (then the National Women’s History Project), successfully lobbied for national recognition of the holiday. President Carter issued the first presidential proclamation declaring the week of March 8, 1980, as National Women’s History Week. This eventually led to Congress passing Public Law 100-9 in 1987 indicating March as Women’s History Month.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) recognizes Women’s History Month by highlighting and thanking all the terrific women leaders within the profession. The PBA has a diverse group of women leaders with a variety of experiences and backgrounds. All of these women add great value to the PBA, which is displayed through their leadership, advocacy, and advancement of the work produced at the PBA.
Women’s History Month Events and Resources:
Books
Notorious RBG: The Life & Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Irin Carmon and Shana Knizhnik
Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women & Feminism by Bell Hooks
The Woman’s Hour: The Great Fight to Win the Vote by Elaine Weiss
Articles
“The Future of Women in Law” by Valerie Spengler
“Women in Big Law: Progress, Challenges & The Road Ahead” By Sophia L. Cahill and Danielle Vrabie
Save the Date
PBA Annual Meeting: May 7th-9th in Lancaster - It's time to mark your calendars for the PBA Annual Meeting! Stay tuned for information regarding registration and programming. A block of guest rooms is being held for the Annual Meeting at the Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square. Group rates are $169 per night plus applicable taxes and are guaranteed only until 5:00 pm on April 12th. To make your reservation by phone, call 1-888-850-6146.
The PBA looks forward to partnering with you this year! For additional information, please go to pabar.org.
PBA thanks you for your support!
Please note that the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) are separate organizations. For more information about PBA, visit pabar.org or follow on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
|
|
|
We Want To Hear From You...
We are always on the lookout for stories of interest relating to legal ethics, new issues in the practice of law, lawyer wellness, and funny or just plain weird stories about the legal profession. If you come across something you think might be enlightening, educational, or entertaining to our readers or social media followers, pass it along. If you are our original source, there may be a hat tip in it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
