Each year we identify a list of the cases decided by the Disciplinary Board and/or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that most piqued our interest. Cases may be considered of interest for several reasons:
- That they involve prominent individuals or major news in the Pennsylvania legal community;
- That they raise or decide issues that cast light on ethical considerations in the practice of law;
- That they illuminate some aspect of the function of the disciplinary process; or
- That they are based on facts that are startling enough to warrant attention.
Usually we offer a list of the five or so top cases. This year, as we surveyed the list of 156 disciplinary cases decided in 2019, the pattern of cases we selected pointed to a different structure. This year, we identified four categories of cases of interest and then selected three cases under each category to highlight. The categories and selected cases are presented in no particular order.
- Decisions regarding former judges;
- Decisions regarding former prosecutors;
- Decisions of interest for their reflections on practice; and
- Decisions that arose from unlicensed practice.
Decisions Regarding Former Judges
Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., No. 26 DB 2012
The disbarment by consent of former Luzerne County judge Mark Ciavarella brought to an end the disciplinary actions arising from the “Kids for Cash” scandal, by which Ciavarella and former judge Michael Conahan were removed from the bench and convicted of Federal crimes for accepting kickbacks in return for placing juveniles in detention facilities. Conahan was disbarred in 2011, but Ciavarella’s appeals were not decided until 2019. An application for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was still pending when he submitted his resignation statement.
Angeles Roca, No. 185 DB 2018 & Dawn A. Segal, No. 195 DB 2018
Roca and Segal, as judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, lost their judicial seats because of a scandal involving judges arranging special treatment for relatives and friends of other judges. Both agreed to suspensions for one year and one day, the minimum interval for which a petition for reinstatement is necessary.
Decisions Involving Former Prosecutors
Kathleen Granahan Kane, No. 17 DB 2019
Kane was the first woman elected as Attorney General of Pennsylvania in 2012. In 2015, she was charged with perjury, false swearing, obstructing administration of law, and official oppression in connection with a pattern of grand jury leaks. She was convicted of nine counts in 2016 and resigned as Attorney General. After exhaustion of her appeals, she submitted her resignation and was disbarred by consent on March 22, 2019.
Miles K. Karson, Jr., No. 12 DB 2019
Karson served as the District Attorney of Mercer County. In January 2019, a jury convicted him of Obstruction of Administration of Law and Official Oppression arising out of efforts to intervene on behalf of a person with whom he had a personal relationship, and the court sentenced him to four years of probation. He was disbarred by consent on May 30, 2019.
Stacy Parks Miller, No. 32 DB 2017
As District Attorney of Centre County, Miller developed a pattern of communicating with judges about the substance of cases by emails and text messages sent ex parte. She also created a fake Facebook identity that she and members of her office used to investigate businesses suspected of illegal activities. The Board further found that some of her statements in the disciplinary proceeding about these matters were not candid. The Supreme Court suspended her for one year and one day.
Cases of Interest for their Reflections on Practice
Robert J. Colaizzi, No. 120 DB 2016
Disciplinary Counsel charged Colaizzi with numerous violations relating to failure to preserve entrusted funds separate and apart and conversion of funds. Colaizzi left the management of the practice’s funds to an employee, who was also his wife, and failed to supervise the employee’s handling of the funds. She commingled and converted funds to her own benefit in six cases. After finding that Colaizzi was not aware of his wife’s mismanagement of entrusted funds, the Disciplinary Board recommended a suspension of one year and one day, which was imposed by the Supreme Court. The case illustrated the importance of attorney oversight of employee actions, particularly in the handling of client funds.
Douglas M. Marinos, No. 42 DB 2018
Marinos was convicted of failure to collect and pay over taxes for payroll taxes he withheld from the paychecks of employees over a period of four years, but diverted to other firm expenses rather than delivering to the IRS. He was sentenced to twelve months and one day in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and payment of a fine and restitution. He agreed to suspension for four years, retroactive to the date of his temporary suspension. The case shows the importance of compliance with tax laws and other laws in the administration of a law practice as a business.
Sandra Ilene Thompson, No. 142 DB 2019
Thompson represented clients on a contingent fee agreement in a case in which a prior attorney began representation, also on a contingent fee agreement. After recovering funds, Thompson asserted that she was entitled to the full amount of her contingent fee without allowance for prior counsel’s claim, and did not obtain the clients’ informed consent to exposure to both fees. The court determined that the prior counsel was entitled to a charging lien on the recovery and ordered Thompson to pay it, but she failed to deliver the funds to either prior counsel or the client within the time directed by the court. As a result, the court found Thompson in contempt and ordered her to pay prior counsel’s attorney fees. The Disciplinary Board directed that Thompson receive a Public Reprimand. The case demonstrates the importance of taking into account a prior counsel’s claim to fees, and communicating clearly with clients as to what fees they will pay as a whole.
Cases Arising from Unlicensed Practice
John T. Lynch, Jr., No. 137 DB 2018
Lynch, who was never licensed anywhere but in Pennsylvania, went on voluntary inactive status in 1983. Between 2009 and 2014, he worked as an investment banker and also as legal counsel for businesses located in Arizona, where he resided. He prepared bond statements and opinion letters as to bonds, as well as drafting other legal documents relating to the bond issues. He identified himself as an attorney on his letterhead. He failed to seek a certificate of registration as an in-house corporate counsel, as required under Arizona law. He was reprimanded by the Arizona Bar and sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based on this activity, Lynch agreed he had practiced law in violation of the laws of the jurisdiction, and accepted a 30-month suspension of his license.
Susan Steinthal, No. 156 DB 2018
Steinthal is a New York attorney who serves as Deputy General Counsel for a bank. She prepared a streamlined version of Answers to Interrogatories in Aid of Execution for the bank as garnishee, and filed 232 such answers in Pennsylvania proceedings with affidavits identifying herself as Deputy General Counsel for the bank. At one point she filled out an online application to the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners for admission to the Pennsylvania bar, but failed to click “Submit” on the application. Her affidavits listed a Pennsylvania address and stated that her application for admission was pending. She acknowledged that she had engaged in unauthorized practice of law in Pennsylvania, consented to a six-month suspension, and agreed not to apply for admission to the Pennsylvania bar for two years. The Supreme Court approved that disposition, although three justices dissented in favor of just the suspension.
Sheila K. Younger-Halliman, No. 239 DB 2018
Younger-Halliman is admitted to the practice of law in Pennsylvania, but lives in Texas and works for a mediation firm. The mediation firm stated on its website that it does not practice law, but the language in Younger-Halliman’s biography on the website made extensive reference to her background as an attorney, and Younger-Halliman acknowledged it was misleading as it could reasonably be interpreted as representing that she was an attorney admitted in Texas. In addition, she entered into fee agreements and provided legal advice and representation to clients through the mediation firm, leading to an action by the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the Texas Bar and the entry of an injunction barring her and her firm from practicing law in Texas. Younger-Halliman agreed that she violated Texas law by practicing law in that jurisdiction, and consented to a suspension of her license for one year.