|
From the Chair
 While summer is often a time of rest and relaxation, the Disciplinary Board and its staff have been working industriously in support of the public and the profession. On July 23rd, the Board hosted its annual Hearing Committee Training, bringing together both veteran and newly-appointed volunteer Hearing Committee Members from around the Commonwealth to discuss pertinent nuances of the disciplinary system and it most delicate operations. Chief Justice Debra Todd opened the training session with an address to the attendees, highlighting the valuable role these members play in Pennsylvania’s attorney disciplinary system. Hearing Committee Members review the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendations for discipline and conduct hearings on formal charges of professional misconduct and petitions for reinstatement. Thorough training and support are absolutely vital to Members’ prudent undertakings.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all Hearing Committee Members in attendance as well as to all staff who, once again, delivered an exceptional event. I would like to thank all session speakers for their generosity of both time and expertise. Finally, I would like to thank Chief Justice Todd whose insightful remarks reminded us that ethical law practice and the field of attorney discipline are the backbone of the legal profession.
On August 13, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an Order administratively suspending 1,106 attorneys for failing to file their 2025-2026 annual registration form and pay the associated fees. The Board firmly urges those attorneys to complete their registration without delay. The Order will become effective on September 12, 2025, rescinding the privilege of the practice of law in Pennsylvania from any attorney who has not fulfilled his or her yearly registration obligation before that date. More than thirty years into my career in law, I can confidently affirm the true honor it is to be a member of Pennsylvania’s bar. Please treasure this privilege.
With gratitude,
David S. Senoff
Board Chair
|
|
|
Annual Attorney Registration
2025-2026 Registration Past Due
By Order dated August 13, 2025, the Supreme Court administratively suspended 1,106 attorneys who have not yet completed their annual registration. The order is effective in thirty days, allowing these attorneys the opportunity to complete annual registration on or before September 11, 2025 to avoid transfer to administrative suspension.
The current license status of a Pennsylvania attorney can be found on the Board’s website at .
|
|
|
|
Discipline Imposed
July 2025
|
|
|
|
Reinstatements
July 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 Holds Hearing Committee Training, Hosts Chief Justice Debra Todd
On July 22nd and 23rd, the Disciplinary Board hosted its Hearing Committee Training in the Midstate. Duties of Hearing Committee Members involve reviewing the recommended disposition of complaints as offered by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; conducting disciplinary and reinstatement hearings, either as a three-member panel or single designated member; and preparing a written report and recommendation to the Board following disciplinary and reinstatement proceedings. Comprehensive training is essential to Members’ imperative role within Pennsylvania’s disciplinary system.
This year, the Board invited all 151 returning and newly-appointed volunteer Hearing Committee Members from across the state to the educational conference. Including Board Members, Board staff, Senior Hearing Committee Members, and other experts, presenters and panels delved into wide variety of topics most significant to Hearing Committee service.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Todd opens the conference, welcoming all attendees.
Once again, the Board was highly honored to host Chief Justice Debra Todd at this year’s conference. Chief Justice Todd set the tone for the day, welcoming all other guests. She stressed that the integrity of PA’s legal profession rests largely on the function of the Disciplinary Board and its Hearing Committee Members. And, once again underscoring the importance of continued diversity amongst the Hearing Committee Members and Board adjudicators, Chief Justice Todd further pushes the aspirations of the organization.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Vacancies
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is aided by select boards, committees, commissions, and councils consisting of more than 180 appointed volunteers – most, but not all, are lawyers and judges. The panels have a wide range of responsibilities and functions. Some make recommendations to the Court for amendments, revisions, or simplification of court procedural rules. Others regulate the practice of law, oversee continuing legal education for lawyers, and administer funds to assist individuals unable to pay for legal services. Still others advise on keeping the courts free of bias and discrimination and on long-range planning.
There are currently vacancies on the following court entity:
IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts) Board – Applicants should be familiar with and supportive of civil legal aid and pro bono service to the low-income community. Members are appointed to a three-year term, and no member may serve more than two consecutive three-year terms. Once appointed, members are prohibited from serving as a director, trustee, officer, or any other fiduciary role of a grantee or grant applicant.
Application Instructions
If you would like to be considered to serve on a board, committee, advisory group, or related independent entity, email the application, cover letter, resume, and other pertinent information expressing your reasons of interest to SCApplications@pacourts.us.
More information may be found on the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania website.
Applications are due by Sunday, August 31, 2025.
|
|
|
|
CDC Corner
The Impact of the Anonymous Attorneys Decisions
Over the past eighteen months, the Supreme Court issued three precedential decisions, two on discipline, ODC v. Anonymous Attorney, 327 A.3d 192 (Pa. 2024)("AA 2024"), ODC v. Anonymous Attorney, 331 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2025)("AA 2025") and one on reinstatement, Matter of Cappuccio, 2025 WL 1822058 (PA 2025). Each time, the attorneys prevailed. This month, I’ll discuss the impact of the two Anonymous Attorney decisions.
AA 2024 arose from a bad faith insurance case tried in federal court. (Since the attorney prevailed and no discipline was imposed, AA's identity remains confidential. See RDE 402(k)) AA, the plaintiff’s attorney, won a $100,000 verdict which entitled the attorney to collect fees from the defendant insurance company under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8371. The petition for fees and costs amounted to $1,122,156. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found the petition so excessive that, as a sanction, the court denied AA any fee recovery and referred the matter to ODC.
The Disciplinary Board found a violation of RPC 1.5 which forbids charging or collecting unreasonable fees. Upon granting AA’ s petition for review, the Court also asked the parties to brief the applicability of Rule 8.4(d)(interfering with the administration of justice).
The Supreme Court held that neither rule was violated. “Rule 1.5 does not apply when an attorney files a fee petition seeking to recover from an adverse party on behalf of a client,” the Court ruled. Id. At 202. Further, it forbade use of Rule 8.4(d) as a stand-alone offense. It applies only when some other specific Rule of Professional Conduct has been violated and the conduct interfered with the administration of justice.
In AA 2025, a bankruptcy court imposed sanctions, after a hearing, on the lawyer for the creditor. The bankruptcy court found that the respondent attempted to extort a settlement from the debtor’s attorney and that the respondent submitted false evidence.
The Hearing Committee and Board used the bankruptcy court findings as collateral estoppel on the issue of fraud. The Supreme Court reversed. It held that the burden of proof in disciplinary cases is clear and convincing evidence. (The burden had previously been stated as “a preponderance of the evidence that is clear and satisfactory.”) Since the sanctions were imposed under a preponderance standard, they could not estop the respondent in a disciplinary proceeding where he was entitled to the higher clear and convincing standard.
Implications:
1. Rule 1.5 does not apply to fee-shifting litigation, but AA 2024 does not say whether the Rule applies when other non-clients pay fees: employers, insurers, or parents, for example.
2. Rule 8.4(d) cannot be charged as a stand-alone offense. Does it apply when the underlying violation is a government attorney’s egregious violation of constitutional rights which is not a rule violation? The issue was not before the Court.
3. ODC likely cannot prosecute cases where the only alleged misconduct is violations of court orders or rules. Pennsylvania omitted from its version of RPC 3.4 the language in the ABA Model Rule 3.4(d) that forbids knowing disobedience of “an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.” Compare In re Askew, 225 A.3d 388, 396-97 (D.C. 2020).
4. Collateral estoppel rarely will apply in disciplinary cases because most civil rulings are made under a preponderance standard. Not only is collateral estoppel usually unavailable, but the rules of evidence may prevent ODC from introducing the court’s finding to prove the facts found. It is inadmissible hearsay. Castellani v. Scranton Times, L.P., 124 A.3d 1229,1244-45 (PA 2015)(majority), id. At 1246 (Saylor, C.J., concurring and dissenting). But pleadings and transcripts of testimony from the respondent and the respondent's employees or unavailable witnesses might be admissible for other purposes, Pa.R.Evid.801(c); as admissions, PA.R.Evid. 803(25); or as prior testimony, Pa.R.Evid.804(b)(1).
5. AA 2025 does not, however, prevent the estoppel use of discipline from other jurisdictions in a reciprocal discipline case and of criminal convictions. See RDE 214(e)(convictions), 216(d)(reciprocal discipline).
Thomas J. Farrell
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
|
|
|
|
Articles of Interest
Lawyer Reprimanded for Actions as a Loan Modification Agent
The Disciplinary Board determined that a Schuylkill County lawyer should receive a public reprimand for his actions as a loan modification agent despite his contention that the services did not constitute the practice of law.
The Board accepted a Hearing Committee report finding that Erik Helbing of Tamaqua violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) in six client matters involving loan modification and debt relief services. His practice was nationwide, and the violations occurred in cases in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
The Disciplinary Board found that, in six cases, Helbing committed misconduct including:
- Failure to provide adequate services, rendering his fees excessive (In each case, these fees were fully refunded.);
- Failure to state in his retainer agreement that he was not admitted to practice in the jurisdictions in which clients resided, although each engagement letter also included the name of a local attorney; and
- Failure to properly supervise his staff.
The Board noted that RPC 5.7 addresses nonlegal services provided in connection with a law practice. Subsections (2) and (3) state that a lawyer is subject to the RPCs if the lawyer “knows or reasonably should know that the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship.” The Board found that Helbing should have known his clients would consider his relationship with them an attorney-client relationship and thus that the RPCs were applicable to his conduct.
As stipulated by the parties, the Board found that this misconduct violated sixteen RPCs in six states, relating to excessive fees, failure to consult, competence, diligence, and failure to supervise staff. The Board noted that the Consumer Fraud Division (CFD) of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office found that he misrepresented, directly or by implication, material aspects of his debt relief service, including the amount of money or the percentage of the debt amount that an individual may save by using the service. He entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the CFD. He was also publicly reprimanded by the Virginia State Bar and agreed to resolve and address $44,217.00 in debt but failed to do so.
The Board noted several mitigating factors including the lack of prior discipline, remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and cooperation with the disciplinary inquiry. After reviewing case law, the Board concluded that the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent for public reprimand was appropriate and imposed that discipline.
Maryland Court Recognizes Domestic Violence Experiences as Mitigating Factor in Discipline Case
The Supreme Court of Maryland indefinitely suspended a lawyer who was found guilty of a pattern of misconduct, including failure to keep her clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases, to perform meaningful legal services in furtherance of their cases, to recognize a conflict of interest and contributed to that conflict by filing suit against a client, and to comply with Bar Counsel’s investigations. She was also found to have improperly collected a flat fee. The Court found, however, that there was significant mitigation due to a pattern of domestic abuse the lawyer experienced.
The Court accepted the report of a hearing judge who found that Marnitta Lanette King violated nine of the Rules of Professional Conduct and found six aggravating and three mitigating factors. One of the mitigating factors was that “she was enduring serious personal issues, specifically domestic abuse.” She testified that abuse by her ex-husband resulted in injuries including scars, a dislocated jaw, a ruptured bicep, a torn rotator cuff, and damage to her wrist that prevented her from being able to write for a substantial period. Ms. King testified that she obtained several protective orders against her ex-husband; that he regularly stalked her, including coming to her office “on a regular basis” to find her; that being stalked prevented her from coming to the office at times when others were not present; and that she was forced to stay at a safe house for a period of time for protection.
The Court remarked, “Credible allegations of domestic violence, as the hearing judge clearly found to exist here, can support finding the mitigating factor of personal or emotional problems. Neither the prevalence of domestic violence nor the debilitating effects it can have on those who suffer from it can be subject to doubt. We have no hesitation in recognizing that domestic violence can be a contributing factor in misconduct that leads to a violation of the MARPC.” The Court stated that, where it is a contributing factor in such misconduct, it is an appropriate mitigating factor. It found, however, that she did not tie the domestic violence she suffered to any particular instance of misconduct but largely denied many of the allegations of misconduct in ways that were inconsistent with such an explanation.
After weighing several aggravating and mitigating factors and reviewing case law, the Court rejected the recommendation of Bar Counsel for disbarment and instead imposed an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement six months from her date of suspension. The Court noted, “A condition of her reinstatement shall be agreement to a probationary period of not less than one year that will include a practice monitor and other appropriate conditions.”
California Bar Panel Recommends Former Exec Be Suspended
In case anyone thinks that lawyers within the disciplinary system are immune from discipline for their actions, they are not.
In an Opinion filed July 2, 2025, a three-judge review panel of the State Bar Court of California recommended that Joseph Dunn, a former Executive Director of the State Bar and state senator, be suspended for a period of one year with thirty days served and the rest stayed. The Opinion accepted findings of a hearing judge that while serving as Executive Director, Dunn falsely advised the trustees of the State Bar that no state funds were expended on a trip to Mongolia to help reform its legal system. The hearing judge found that in fact the Bar spent more than $7,000 on the trip. Dunn was fired as Executive Director upon discovery of the payments in 2014. The review panel upheld the hearing judge’s dismissal of other charges against Dunn.
The hearing judge recommended that Dunn’s suspension be stayed in full, but the review panel determined that the first thirty days of the suspension should be served. They further recommended that Dunn serve a one-year period of probation which would include the time spent on actual suspension.
An attorney for Dunn stated that he will appeal the "baseless decision" and that the ethics charges against Dunn were retaliation for his efforts to "rid the bar of its entrenched and dysfunctional bureaucrats."
ABA Formal Ethics Opinion Discusses Discrimination in Jury Selection in Age of Consultants and AI Technology
In Formal Ethics Opinion 517, published July 9, 2025, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility examined the duties of lawyers engaged in jury selection. The opinion focused on avoiding the use of discriminatory practices in the exercise of peremptory challenges, particularly when using the assistance of jury selection consultants or technology employing artificial intelligence (AI).
The Committee begins its analysis by noting a series of decisions beginning with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US. 79 (1986) in which the Supreme Court has held that trial lawyers in both criminal and civil cases are forbidden from exercising peremptory challenges based on certain specified criteria. These include the prospective juror’s race or gender because doing so violates prospective jurors’ equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many subsequent state and Federal cases have followed and expanded upon that doctrine. The Committee cites Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(g), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Pennsylvania’s RPC 8.4(g) differs slightly in wording from the ABA Model Rule but imposes a similar duty.
The Committee stresses that the determination of whether a practice is discriminatory under RPC 8.4(g) depends to some extent on law outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It points out that Comment [3] to Rule 8.4 provides that “[t]he substantive law of antidiscrimination and antiharassment statutes and case law may guide application of paragraph (g).” This can lead to questions of fact, and even a judicial finding of a Batson violation does not automatically equate with a Rule 8.4(g) violation, particularly given the higher burden of proof that may apply in disciplinary proceedings. The Committee notes, “A disciplinary hearing may yield more complete information and enable the lawyer to offer a more fulsome explanation for exercising peremptory challenges than may have been available during jury selection in the trial in question.”
It further notes that a lawyer only runs afoul of RPC 8.4(g) if the lawyer “knows or reasonably should know” that the exercise of a peremptory challenge is impermissibly discriminatory. A difficult question arises when peremptory challenges, on their face, may be discriminatory, but the client or jury consultant offers other, nondiscriminatory reasons for exercising them. In such cases the “reasonably should know” standard imposes a duty of inquiry on the lawyer to ascertain whether the client or consultant has sincere reasons that are legitimate, in which case the lawyer may exercise the peremptory challenge. But, if a reasonably competent and prudent lawyer would know that the reasons are pretextual, then the lawyer must refrain from relying on the client or consultant.
A similar concern arises when the lawyer relies on software in making decisions about jury selection. The lawyers should conduct sufficient due diligence to acquire a general understanding of the methodology employed by the juror selection program and disregard its recommendations if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that improper considerations are built into the application’s programming or operation.
The Committee concludes, “A lawyer may not follow a client’s directive or accept a jury consultant’s advice or AI software’s guidance to exercise peremptory challenges if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the conduct will constitute unlawful juror discrimination. However, a lawyer does not violate Rule 8.4(g) by exercising peremptory challenges on a discriminatory basis where not forbidden by other law.”
Note that this Opinion is advisory only. It is not binding on the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or any other Court.
Stop the Bar Exam? Absolutely Maybe Not
Bar examinations have a long tradition that the taking of the test will not be interrupted for any reason. That doctrine came to the test during the COVID pandemic when some bar authorities came under fire for going ahead with examinations in packed rooms just when such mass assemblages were perceived as potentially life-threatening. Mississippi half-acknowledged the risk when they required applicants to sign a waiver releasing the Board of Law Examiners and the Supreme Court from any liability for transmission of the disease while acknowledging that “my use thereof may … result in exposure to COVID-19, which could result in quarantine requirements, serious illness, disability, and/or death.” How much do you really want to be a lawyer?
That do-or-die or maybe do-and-die-anyway spirit emerged again in this year’s New York bar examination at Hofstra University where reports assert that a person taking the test apparently suffered a heart attack and fell to the floor unconscious during the examination. A fellow test-taker reported on Reddit that, “for what seemed like a long time,” no one reacted and the examination went on, and it was only gradually that anyone attempted to help or called for medical assistance. Eventually, security entered the room with medical equipment, and one person began doing chest compressions. The Reddit poster added that the exam went on while all this was happening in the room. There is no conclusive word on the victim’s condition after the incident.
Not all bars are so stern about carrying on, however. When an 8.7 magnitude earthquake off Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula triggered tsunami warnings across the Pacific on July 29, officials in Hawai’i hastened to evacuate all vulnerable areas, including the site of the state’s July bar exam. While many applicants feel in over their heads and underwater during the bar exam, fortunately, that concern did not need to be literal.
|
|
|
Attorney Well-Being
LCL Facilitates Lawyers-Only Recovery Meeting
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania facilitates regular lawyers-only volunteer-run recovery meetings open to attorneys, judges and law students. View the meeting schedule here on the Disciplinary Board's "Lawyer Well-Being" webpage.
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
Supreme Court Releases 2024 Annual Report
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania released its 2024 Annual Report. Chief Justice Debra Todd noted, “Our annual report is more than a record of numbers – it is a reflection of our ongoing commitment to justice, transparency and service to the people of Pennsylvania. The increase in case dispositions across our dockets demonstrates the dedication of our Court to upholding the rule of law and ensuring the timely administration of justice.”
The recently-issued report provides an overview of the Court’s work throughout 2024. The Court notes a few highlights:
- Appeal Docket: In 2024, the Court disposed of 202 direct appeals and granted allocaturs, marking an increase from 2023’s 153.
- Allocatur Docket (Discretionary Review): A total of 1,457 petitions were disposed of, compared to 1,315 disposed petitions in 2023.
- Miscellaneous Docket: The Court addressed 351 matters under its original jurisdiction, almost a twenty-five percent increase from the previous year.
- Ancillary Filings: Over two thousand procedural filings (such as motions for extensions and other relief) were resolved in 2024.
The annual report also includes a summary of attorney disciplinary matters adjudicated by the Court – ninety matters adjudicated in total.
Access the full 2024 report here on the UJS website.
Pennsylvania Courts Bring Awareness to Traffic Citations in School Zones through New Infographic
As students and teachers return to classrooms for a new school year, the Unified Judicial System (UJS) recently published a new infographic bringing awareness to traffic citation in school zones. Over the past five years, from 2020 through 2024, over 22,000 drivers in Pennsylvania have been cited for school zone violations. Such violations include speeding in a school zone and overtaking or illegally passing a school bus.
UJS wants to "remind drivers to slow down in school zones, stop for school buses, and stay alert to help ensure the safety of our students."
Read the full press release and access the infographic here on the UJS website.
|
|
|
From the Pennsylvania Bar Association
The Pennsylvania Bar Association Has Great Offerings for August
Free Webinar: AI Powered Efficiency: How to Replace the B-U-S-Y With AI at Your Firm
Monday, August 25 | 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
Are you looking for practical insights and actionable strategies to optimize your firm's workflows? Join the PBA for this free webinar with Clio and learn how to leverage automation tools to increase productivity and profits at your firm. Attendees will also explore how law firms are utilizing their PBA member discount and using Clio’s innovative legal technology to streamline their practice. Register today and start spending less time on administrative work and free up more time for billable hours and attention to clients!
Legal Aid Attorneys: Loan Repayment Assistance Is Available
The Pennsylvania Bar Foundation understands the financial burden of law school debt and is committed to supporting attorneys in need. The Loan Repayment Assistance Program provides financial aid to qualified applicants employed at IOLTA-funded legal service organizations to help alleviate the strain of student loan repayments.
The amount awarded depends on the available funding and the number of eligible applicants. The application period will open on the WebGrants Portal on September 1. Act quickly and submit an application before the October 15 deadline to be considered for this year’s loan repayment assistance. For more information, click here.
Help a Hero through Wills for Heroes
Are you looking for a way to volunteer your time and give back to those in your community? The PBA Wills for Heroes program is comprised of volunteer attorneys who provide free basic estate planning for hometown heroes such as first responders and military veterans.
If you're ready to volunteer and offer your expertise, the program is hosting a wills clinic in Carlisle on August 23. The PBA's goal is to have twenty attorney stations throughout the clinic. Contact gabriele.millerwagner@pabar.org to volunteer today!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
