From the Chair
 

Following the conclusion of another successful Annual Attorney Registration cycle, the Disciplinary Board would like to thank all Pennsylvania attorneys who timely completed their annual obligation. I also want to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to Disciplinary Board staff for their dedication to an efficient registration process and to this organization at large.
 
Looking to the changing season, many will find new beginnings in a burgeoning law career. The Board stresses misconduct prevention before disciplinary action and firmly believes that thorough ethics education is essential to prevention. Connecting with law students, at the start of their legal career, is a particular priority to this Board. Board Members and staff have been delighted to speak with students  ̶  in the classroom, at student fairs, and at other engagements  ̶  about Pennsylvania’s attorney discipline system and, perhaps more importantly, the ethical obligations that new lawyers will face once admitted to practice. It is a great privilege to invest in the future generations of the legal profession. Thank you to our law schools for your continued collaboration. The future of our profession looks bright!
 
Finally, each September, we observe Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. Far too few in the legal community are educated about mental health and suicide prevention  ̶  including warning signs that someone may be considering suicide  ̶  despite high rates of depression and other challenges throughout the profession. As I’m sure most readers are aware, following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health challenges have sharply increased. Mental health diagnoses amongst adults ages 35 to 44, for example, increased by 45% in 2023 compared to 2019. There are, however, a multitude of resources to support the distinct experiences of legal professionals. Remember that seeking help is a sign of both hope and strength  ̶  not weakness.
 
Stay well,
 
John C. Rafferty, Jr.
Board Chair

August 2024

Suspension Latif Selassie Doman Stephen William Dotts Ralph David Karsh Andrew Scott Ziegler

Disbarment Jared Noah Klein Darren Keith Parr

August 2024

Disciplinary Board News

Upcoming Public Proceedings

Vacancies

Articles of Interest
 

Lawyer Suspended for Hiding Clients from Law Firm
 
A York County lawyer has 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 and created duplicate records to conceal the practice.
 
Andrew Scott Ziegler entered into a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent, agreeing to the suspension. The statement of facts in the Joint Petition establishes that Ziegler left his solo practice in 2017 to join the law firm of Mooney and Associates. The firm’s employment manual forbade him from engaging in outside employment without informing the law firm which had the right to preclude employment that would damage the firm or threaten its competitive position.
 
The Joint Petition recited that Ziegler represented several clients whose fees he did not turn over to the law firm. On some of these occasions, he had the clients sign two fee agreements, one for pro bono work with the law firm and one with himself. He told the law firm that he was representing these clients on a pro bono basis but collected fees from them for himself. He failed to deposit these sums into an IOLTA account and lost $4,000 in client funds. This constituted a financial benefit to him and a loss to the firm.
 
The Joint Petition set out nine cases in which Ziegler engaged in misconduct, including failing to remit funds to the law firm, false statements to the firm about the status of clients he was representing on the side, failing to obtain client consent for various issues, and failing to deposit a real estate escrow check in the approximate amount of $209,000 into a trust account. Upon his termination from the law firm, employees found envelopes in his desk containing $10,000 in cash.

The parties agreed that this conduct violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 1.5(a) [illegal or clearly excessive fee], several provisions of Rule 1.15 [handling of client funds], Rule 4.1(a) [false statements to a third party], and three sections of Rule 8.4 [attorney misconduct].
 
The request of the Joint Petition for suspension was recommended by a three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board and adopted by Order of the Supreme Court dated August 9, 2024.

People sometimes wonder why suspensions are often set for one year and one day. Under Rule 218(a)(3) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement provides that an attorney suspended for more than one year must undergo a reinstatement proceeding and be reinstated by order of the Supreme Court before resuming the practice of law. The suspension for one year and one day is the minimum suspension that still requires a lawyer to petition for reinstatement.
 

---

Lawyer Agrees to Reprimand for Whispering During Deposition
 
A Lackawanna County lawyer has agreed to the imposition of a Public Reprimand based on his conduct during a video deposition which resulted in an order for sanctions against him and his client.
 
Patrick C. Carey of Scranton entered into a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent, agreeing to the imposition of a Public Reprimand based on his conduct during a deposition in a medical malpractice suit.
 
Carey represented a nurse who had been involved in the treatment that gave rise to the lawsuit in a video deposition. The facts were disputed, but his actions resulted in the filing of a Motion to Dismiss alleging that Carey had improperly interfered with the deposition by whispering suggested answers to the witness, making “speaking objections” which cued the witness as to how she should answer, and generally obstructing the video deposition. In a Memorandum and Order, the Court found that Carey had interfered with the deposition and imposed sanctions including barring the witness from testifying on the challenged answers, ordering Carey and his client to pay the defendants’ legal fees and expenses, and requiring that all proceedings be held in person rather than by Zoom as previously permitted. The judge also directed that a copy of the Memorandum and Order be sent to Disciplinary Counsel. Carey subsequently paid the penalties imposed.
 
In the Joint Petition, Carey did not agree that he had suggested answers to the witness, arguing that words spoken in the background to another attorney who entered the room were mistaken for speech to the witness. He admitted that he failed to clarify what was happening and that he failed to refer the witness to separate counsel for the sanctions hearing, where she was represented by another attorney in his firm. He agreed that his conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 [competent representation], 1.7(a)(2) [concurrent conflict of interest], and 8.4(d) [conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice]. The parties stipulated that Public Reprimand was the appropriate disciplinary action. By Order dated July 30, 2024, the Disciplinary Board ordered that Carey be subjected to a Public Reprimand.
 

---

ABA Opinion Provides Advice on Suspected Client Fraud
 
A newly issued Formal Opinion by the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility provides guidance to lawyers who suspect their clients may be engaged in illegal or fraudulent conduct, or who may be using the lawyer’s representation to further such conduct.
 
Formal Opinion 513 addresses the lawyer’s responsibility under Rule 1.16(a) to inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of each representation to determine whether the lawyer may accept or continue the representation. Rule 1.16(a)(4) requires the lawyer to decline or withdraw from the representation if the client or prospective client seeks to use or persists in using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud.

The Opinion begins by noting, “A duty to inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of a representation has long been implicit in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.” Revised Model Rule 1.16 expressly requires that lawyers must conduct an inquiry and assessment, appropriate to the circumstances, to avoid counseling or assisting in the client’s fraudulent or criminal conduct. It anticipates that only certain cases would necessitate a significant inquiry, mainly those where there appeared to be a heightened risk of crime or fraud or the appearance of “red flags.” If the lawyer has “actual knowledge” that the lawyer’s services will be used to commit or further criminal or fraudulent activity, the lawyer must decline the representation. If the representation is already underway, the lawyer must “consult with the client regarding the limitations on the lawyer’s conduct” and must withdraw if the client persists.

The Committee then addresses the extent of inquiry a lawyer must make. This should be a reasonable risk-based inquiry, neither a perfunctory one nor “one that involves a dragnet-style operation to uncover every fact about every client”. The inquiry may include posing follow-up questions, requesting documents from the client and others, or researching public sources of information. The client’s failure to cooperate with this inquiry may be a “red flag” that requires withdrawal. The Opinion provides hypotheticals to illustrate the kinds of inquiry that may be needed.

The Opinion goes on to discuss the kinds of facts that may trigger an inquiry into the effect of the lawyer’s representation. It concludes, “The lawyer need not resolve all doubts. Rather, if some doubt remains even after the lawyer has conducted a reasonable inquiry, the lawyer may proceed with the representation as long as the lawyer concludes that doing so is unlikely to involve assisting or furthering a crime or fraud.”
 

---

Disney Minus: Company Retreats from Subscription Waiver Claim
 
Sometimes a legal argument is too clever for its own good. The Disney Parks and Recreation company found that out the hard way.
 
The matter arose from a lawsuit filed by New York resident Jeffrey Piccolo based on the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan. While dining at a restaurant at Disney Springs in the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, Dr. Tangsuan, who suffered from severe dairy and nut allergies, repeatedly asked the restaurant staff whether the meal she ordered was allergen-free. The server assured her multiple times that it was although the food lacked allergen-free tags. After consuming the meal, she suffered a severe allergic reaction and died in a nearby hospital. Piccolo sued the restaurant and Disney Parks for $50,000 under Florida’s wrongful death statute.
 
In response, attorneys for Disney Parks argued that Piccolo had agreed to take all issues with Disney to arbitration – by signing up for a free thirty-day trial subscription to the Disney+ streaming service in 2019. The fine print of the terms of that service provides that all disputes between the customer and Disney must be resolved through arbitration.
 
The argument was widely publicized and resulted in overwhelmingly critical reaction. Five days later, counsel for Disney announced that they were withdrawing the waiver claim and that the matter could proceed in litigation. The bad publicity Disney received certainly wasn’t worth saving $50,000.
 

---

Lawyer Charged for Bad Language Doubles Down to Discipline
 
[Due to the facts involved, this story contains language that might be offensive, even with the abundant deployment of asterisks. Reader discretion is advised.]
 
An Australian lawyer, apparently not very concerned about the state of his license, responded to a complaint that he had engaged in misconduct by using inappropriate and unprofessional language with even more inappropriate and unprofessional language.
 
New South Wales lawyer George Sideris was charged with professional misconduct in a case brought by the NSW Law Society for his conduct in a case where he represented his mother-in-law. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) found Sideris guilty of professional misconduct for sending “discourteous and plainly inappropriate” correspondence to other parties in a case and for making “baseless” allegations against an opposing solicitor.
 
Sideris (evidently not represented by counsel) did not respond kindly to the Law Society’s proceeding to strike his license. He did not attend the hearing because he claimed he had “a lot of things to do”, but he informed counsel that the Law Society’s proceeding was “ridiculous” and “totally unnecessary” and accused them of "stupidity". He told the Law Society to “F*** off the lot of you, you bunch of idiots,” and lest anyone miss his point, he added, “Let me be a little nicer – F*** OFF.”  He embellished the communication with the attachment of an image showing a middle finger.
 
The Law Society told the tribunal that the conduct “points to an entrenched pattern of behaviour" by Sideris, which is "in the same or similar vein as the correspondence" of the underlying disciplinary case. They concluded, “The continued pattern of behaviour is, in our assessment, incompatible with the respondent’s name remaining on the roll.”

The action against Sideris was not without precedent.
 

Attorney Well-Being

The Pervasiveness of Imposter Syndrome

"What am I doing here? I don’t belong."
"I'm a total fraud and, sooner or later, everyone's going to find out." 

Sound familiar? If you have ever found yourself saying (quietly) those words, then you may be among the many people who are dealing with Imposter Syndrome.

What is Imposter Syndrome?

Imposter Syndrome, also called perceived fraudulence, involves feelings of self-doubt and personal incompetence that persist despite your education, experience, and accomplishments. While early studies focused on highly successful women, it is now clear that it can affect anyone in the legal profession  ̶  from law students to Big Law executives.

Living in constant fear of discovery, you strive for perfection in everything you do. You might feel guilty or worthless when you can't achieve it, not to mention burned out and overwhelmed by your continued efforts. The results can be devastating.

True imposter feelings involve self-doubt and uncertainty about your talents and abilities. But what if you find yourself in an environment where your peers fail to make room for you or imply you don't deserve your success? Along with the more traditional factors, gender bias and institutionalized racism can also play a significant part in imposter feelings. Even if only perceived, they can surely reinforce the feeling you don't belong.

The History of Imposter Syndrome

First described by psychologists Suzanne Imes, PhD and Pauline Rose Clance, PhD in 1978, who referred to it as imposter "phenomenon", as something which occurs among high achievers who are unable to internalize and accept their success. They often attribute their accomplishments to luck rather than to ability, and fear that others will eventually unmask them as a fraud. 

Despite what may be overwhelming evidence of their deserved accomplishments, people who suffer with Imposter Syndrome remain convinced that they were “lucky” and that their luck will eventually run out and leave them humiliated among their “real-deal” colleagues. 

The Pervasiveness of Imposter Syndrome

So, what do Michele Obama, Lady Gaga, Tom Hanks, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, Serena Williams, and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz have in common? As you may have guessed based upon today's topic, they are among the many well-known and highly successful people who have suffered from Imposter Syndrome.

Hard to believe, you say? Well, according to a 2011 article in the International Journal of Behavioral Sciences, an estimated seventy percent of the population will experience at least one episode of Imposter Syndrome in their lifetimes. I like to point that out to lawyers and law firms, where there still seems to be a pervasive disconnect. While many individual lawyers (including some senior in the profession) are willing to describe their Imposter Syndrome and how it negatively impacts them and their enjoyment of their work and lives, many law firms as organizations deny that their lawyers struggle with this issue, definitively stating, "Look, we don't have that problem!"

My experience says otherwise. I believe there are certain aspects of lawyering and legal training that exacerbate the problem among lawyers. The profession is synonymous with exceptional expectations, intolerance of mistakes, and risk avoidance. Imposter Syndrome is common in overachievers and perfectionists, so it's no wonder many lawyers suffer from chronic self-doubt and feel like intellectual frauds.

Speaking of Perfectionism in the Legal Profession . . .

Some believe it is a disease of the legal profession. Lawyers tend to be perfectionists, setting impossible-to-meet standards for themselves and the sense that nothing is ever good enough. Lawyers are also trained to be on the constant lookout for problems and to be responsible for taking care of clients. This inherent pessimism over what might go wrong creates a sense that problems are everywhere, the true urgency of which becomes exaggerated. Lawyers also often fail to seek out help when needed, not wanting to appear weak. They also face constant deadlines set by the courts, other parties, clients, and their senior colleagues over which they have very little control. 

Lawyers are served well  ̶  at least professionally  ̶  by their perfectionism. But this same perfectionism can make them feel like their work is never good enough. This sort of perfectionism is a major risk factor for burnout.

Do you feel like your work must be one hundred percent perfect, one hundred percent of the time? Truth is, there will never be the "perfect time", and your work will never be one hundred percent flawless. The sooner you're able to accept that, the better off you'll be. Not all perfectionism is inherently bad. Experts refer to it as adaptive perfectionism. Adaptive perfectionism is healthy and normal and relates to an intense effort that is put forth to achieve a certain goal. Adaptively perfectionistic individuals set high but realistic standards and don't resort to harsh self-criticism when these standards are not reached. The goal is not to slip into that “other” form of perfectionism that is maladaptive and can stand in the way of leading a happy and successful life. 

When the out-of-control perfectionist fails to reach a goal, they experience major self-doubt and worry about measuring up. Whether they realize it or not, this group can also be control freaks, feeling like if they want something done right, they have to do it themselves. These so-called imposters think every task they tackle has to be done perfectly, and they rarely ask for help. That perfectionism can lead to two typical responses. They may procrastinate, putting of an assignment out of fear that he or she won’t be able to complete it to the necessary high standards. Or, he or she may overprepare, spending much more time on a task than is necessary. 

I don’t want to leave you with the idea that Imposter Syndrome is only about perfectionism. Far from it. Perhaps the next time I share, I will look at the problem from the social context and how a law firm environment can actually increase the likelihood of developing imposter feelings among its professionals. 

We will look closely at that environment and consider the quality of treatment people receive from others  ̶  particularly the type of treatment that communicates a sense of value, worth, and fitness. Individuals may very well feel like imposters when they are treated in ways to suggest they are. Similarly, such imposter feelings can also be mitigated when these individuals are treated by others as a person of value and worth.

How to Deal with Imposter Syndrome

Let me leave you with a handful of tips for dealing with imposter feelings. 

1. Break the silence. Shame keeps a lot of people from "fessing up" about their fraudulent feelings. Knowing there's a name for these feelings and that you are not alone can be tremendously freeing.

2. Share your feelings. Talk to other people about how you are feeling. Irrational beliefs tend to fester when they are hidden and not talked about.

3. Separate feelings from fact. There are times you'll feel stupid. It happens to everyone from time to time. You're a lawyer, right? Look at the evidence. Think of the clients you've delighted. The case you won or the deal you closed.

4. Accentuate the positive. The good news is being a perfectionist means you care deeply about the quality of your work. The key is to continue to strive for excellence when it matters most, but don't persevere over routine tasks and forgive yourself when the inevitable mistake happens.

5. Use social media moderately. We know that the overuse of social media may be related to feelings of inferiority. If you try to portray an image on social media that doesn't match who you really are or that is impossible to achieve, it will only make your feelings of being a fraud worse.

6. Develop a healthy response to failure and mistakes. Instead of beating yourself up for a shortcoming, say, "Wait ‘til next time!"

7. Fake it until you make it. Now and then we all have to fly by the seat of our pants. Tell yourself you are confident and you are smart. By telling yourself you have these qualities and acting as if you are, soon you won't be telling yourself or acting anymore.

Avoid Comparing Yourself to Others

Everyone has unique abilities. You are where you are because someone recognized your talents and your potential.

You may not excel in every task you attempt, but you don't have to, either. Almost no one can "do it all". Even when it seems like someone has everything under control, you may not know the full story.

Trust me, no one would ever guess what I experienced and where it all took me. Why? Because I finally admitted that I needed help, and it changed my life forever. I am living proof of the incredible work of lawyers assistance programs that exist throughout this country and that showed me that I was not alone.

Remember: Real imposters don’t suffer from Imposter Syndrome!

Bryan S. Quinn, Esq.
Education and Outreach Coordinator of Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
 

 

---

Institute for Well-Being in Law to Hold Free Suicide Prevention Virtual Event

On Thursday, September 26th, the Institute for Well-Being in Law (IWIL) will host "Legal Employers’ Guide to Understanding and Preventing Suicide and Other Mental Health Emergencies", a free virtual event featuring suicide prevention expert Dr. Sally Spencer-Thomas, Psy.D. MNM.

The latest in IWIL's Path to Lawyer Well-Being Speaker Series, this event will "delve into the latest research on mental health trends within the legal field, explore the root causes behind these alarming statistics, and provide evidence-based best practices to recognize and support colleagues in need."

Learn more and register 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.
 

 

---

We Want To Hear From You...

Resources