|
From the Chair
 On April 22nd, the 2026–2027 Annual Attorney Registration opened to all Pennsylvania attorneys. As a reminder, under the Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement, see Pa.R.D.E. 219, every active and inactive attorney in this Commonwealth is required to submit an annual registration form through the Unified Judicial System Web Portal. The Board thanks the over 21,400 attorneys who have already done so.
As many of you know, the annual assessment is vital to the self-regulating nature of the profession. In addition to funding basic Board operations, it sustains the PA IOLTA Board—which channels resources to pro bono civil legal aid throughout the Commonwealth—as well as the PA Lawyers Fund for Client Security which reimburses clients who have been harmed by attorney misconduct. The Disciplinary Board and the Lawyers Fund provide substantial funding to Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania, which delivers critical assistance to attorneys, judges, law students, and their families in moments of personal and professional crisis. These are not abstractions. They are the connective tissue of a functioning legal profession in Pennsylvania.
For those facing genuine financial hardship, in 2022, the Supreme Court amended Rule 219 to permit waiver of the annual fee for attorneys whose adjusted gross income falls at or below the federal poverty guidelines. While the Board continues to offer this resource to those in need, please note that these waiver requests are due by July 1st.
The Board urges all Pennsylvania attorneys to complete their annual obligation before the deadline. The alternative—late payment penalties or administrative suspension of licensure—is entirely avoidable.
Finally, May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and it warrants more than a passing nod. The legal profession demands a great deal of those who choose it. The demands accumulate. Often they are carried quietly, and alone. That is not how it has to be. The Board encourages every attorney—and every judge, law student, and legal professional—to visit the Board’s Lawyer Well-Being webpage and to engage seriously with what they find there. Caring for yourself is not a concession to weakness. It is, more fundamentally, what allows you to do the work—for your clients, your colleagues, and the profession that depends on all of us.
Be well,
Shohin H. Vance
Board Chair
|
|
|
|
Annual Attorney Registration
Online Registration is Open!
Attorney Registration Portal Is Open, Registration Due July 1st
The 2026-2027 Annual Attorney Registration, due July 1 st, is now available on the UJS Portal. Attorneys currently on an active license status ( i.e., Active, In-House Corporate Counsel, Defender or Legal Services Attorney, or Foreign Legal Consultant) or Inactive Status must register annually. Those seeking to assume retired status also must do so by July 1 st .
The same payment methods will be available on the UJS Portal.
- Credit Card (most efficient method)
- eCheck (please note delayed processing times)
- Check (to be sent by mail with a unique payment voucher)
Payment Note: If you choose to Pay Online by either a credit/debit card or by eCheck, it is recommended to manually enter your information on the payment screens and to not allow your browser to auto-populate your information.
Attorneys may apply for a waiver of the active annual fee under the condition of extreme financial hardship. Learn more here.
As always, please ensure that your contact information is up to date with the Disciplinary Board.
Attorney Registration Fee: Where Does It Go?
Each Pennsylvania attorney on Active or Inactive Status pays an annual fee for the privilege of practicing law in the Commonwealth. For the 2026-2027 registration year, the annual fee is $275 per active attorney. Members of the bar may wonder: Where is this money going?
The annual fee is a combined total of three different charges, each authorized by a rule adopted by the Supreme Court.
The largest component of the fee is $195 imposed by Rule 219(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, which states, “On or before July 1 of each year, all attorneys required by paragraph (a)(1) of this rule to register, and who elect one of those statuses, shall pay an annual assessment.” Attorneys obliged to pay this fee under Pa.R.D.E. 219(a) include attorneys on the below license statuses.
- Active
- Foreign Legal Consultant
- In-House Corporate Counsel
- Defender or Legal Services Attorney
- Attorney Spouse of Active-Duty Military
- Inactive
Among other endeavors, this fee funds the operations of the Disciplinary Board and its subsidiary offices, including the Attorney Registration Office and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
The administration of discipline is not the only function supported by this funding. The work of the Attorney Registration Office touches the professional life of every attorney admitted to practice in PA. The Board’s website provides public contact information and current status for PA attorneys and is a significant resource for the bar, court officials, and the public in locating and confirming the status of PA attorneys. The Case Research Collection (CRC) serves as a resource for attorneys researching ethical issues. The “Pro Bono” webpage provides resource links, program overviews, pro bono news items from the Board and contributions from the PA IOLTA and CLE Boards. The “Lawyer Well-being” webpage connects PA attorneys with available resources, events, and articles to better understand and support their mental health and well-being. In 2025, the website saw approximately 3.5 million visitors using these functions and reading sixty-eight news articles published to the site.
In addition to these activities, the Board, together with the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security, funds the peer help organization Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania. One lesson learned quickly in the handling of disciplinary cases is that attorney misconduct is often a product of human frailty more than bad intentions. To act with compassion toward attorneys struggling with challenging life situations and to prevent the occurrence of misconduct, the Board has made a significant commitment to attorney health and wellness. Its support of and partnership with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers is a key part of this commitment.
The second component of the fee funds the PA Lawyers Fund for Client Security under the authority of Pa.R.D.E. 502(b), which provides, “Every attorney who is required to pay an active annual assessment under Rule 219 . . . shall pay an additional annual assessment of $50.00 for use by the Fund.”
The mission of the PA Lawyers Fund for Client Security is to reimburse victims of attorney dishonesty in the practice of law, to preserve the integrity and protect the good name of the legal profession, and to promote public confidence in the legal system and the administration of justice in PA. During 2024-2025, the Fund approved eighty-two claims in the amount of $961,510. Seven awards totaling $158,680 subsequently were rescinded when the attorney against whom the claims were made paid the client or the client failed to comply with the conditions of the award.
The final element of the registration fee funds the Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Board. This funding is authorized in Rule 1.15(u) of the Rules of Professional Conduct which states, “Every attorney who is required to pay an active annual assessment under Rule 219 of the [Pa.R.D.E.] . . . shall pay an additional annual fee of $30.00 for use by the IOLTA Board.”
The core mission of the PA IOLTA Board is to support the provision of civil legal services to the Commonwealth’s poor and disadvantaged, where a basic human need, such as access to shelter, nutrition, or healthcare, is at stake. The IOLTA Board makes grants annually to non-profit organizations, law school clinical programs, and administration of justice projects that provide civil legal services free of charge to the poor and disadvantaged.
These three fees of $195, $50, and $30 add up to a combined fee of $275. PA’s fee is comparable to the fees of other similar jurisdictions with a voluntary bar membership (some states require membership in the bar association and, as such, membership is built into the licensing fee): Massachusetts is $351, New Jersey is $267, and Illinois is $385. |
|
|
|
Discipline Imposed
April 2026
|
|
|
|
Reinstatements
April 2026
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 Quarterly Publishes Financial Institutions List, Highlighting Platinum Leader Banks
Quarterly, the Disciplinary Board publishes an up-to-date list of financial institutions approved by the Supreme Court for the maintenance of fiduciary accounts of attorneys under the terms of Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 221. The most recent list was printed in the May 9, 2026 issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
New to the list this quarter is Emigrant Bank (682).
Readers will notice that some of the institutions on the list are designated as Platinum Leader Banks. 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 of free civil legal services. The PA IOLTA Board provides critical grant funding to legal aid organizations that deliver free civil legal aid to low-income Pennsylvanians facing a legal crisis where a basic human need is at stake.
So, how does the IOLTA program work? Clients and other parties regularly transfer money to pertinent attorneys to hold. According to the IOLTA Board, “When the amount is large, or if the funds will be held for an extended period of time, attorneys invest them for the benefit of the client.” However, nominal and short-term fiduciary funds must be deposited by attorneys in interest-bearing IOLTA accounts in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15. The designated bank then transfers all interest earned on IOLTA accounts to the PA IOLTA Board.
Currently, the following institutions qualify as Platinum Leader Banks:
American Bank
AmeriServ Financial
Bank of Bird-in-Hand
Benchmark Federal Credit Union
Central Penn Bank & Trust
Centre 1st Bank, a Division of Old Dominion National Bank
CFS Bank
First Resource Bank
Hingham Institution for Savings
Juniata Valley Bank
Meridian Bank
New Tripoli Bank
Parke Bank
Somerset Trust Company
Wells Fargo Bank
These financial institutions pay a rate which is the higher of 0.75% or seventy-five percent of the Federal Funds Target Rate on all PA IOLTA accounts. PA lawyers interested in supporting the goal of providing legal access to those of limited resources should 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 Suspended for Allegations Against Judges: Board Explains Misrepresentation Standard
Montgomery County attorney Olivia A. Adams has been suspended by the Supreme Court for five years after engaging in a series of false and inflammatory allegations against judges.
Adams’s disciplinary issues arose out of a case brought under Pennsylvania’s Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act. Two individuals and the Philadelphia Community Development Coalition filed a petition in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, requesting the appointment of a conservator to take possession of an abandoned, blighted property. A developer who had purchased the property from the original owner sought to intervene, and Adams subsequently appeared on behalf of the developer.
Over the course of the litigation, Adams came to the conclusion that the petitioners and judges in the case were engaged in a conspiracy to steal the property. She sent numerous letters and emails to several parties including the President Judge, the judges involved and their staff, and others, making scandalous and unfounded accusations against the judge presiding over the case. She filed a “Motion to Disqualify Based on Severe and Admitted Diminished Mental and Physical Capacity” alleging that the judge was not competent to handle the case. She filed a sixty-three-page complaint accompanied by a forty-five-page “Summary” in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the judges, opposing counsel, and others, alleging a litany of state and federal law violations. That case was dismissed with prejudice, and that decision was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. She failed to attend a costs and fees hearing which had been continued due to her inability to participate in a prior hearing for technical reasons. Though another attorney appeared on behalf of her client, she continued to send emails and other communications to the Court and other participants.
Adams maintained throughout the disciplinary process that the accusations she made were true although the Board found them false. In response to this, the Board addressed the standard for when a sincerely believed assertion can still be considered false and deceptive for purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding candor:
Once ODC meets its burden to prove the allegations are false, the burden shifts to Adams to establish that the allegations are true or that following a reasonable, diligent inquiry, Adams formed an objective reasonable belief that the allegations are true…. [T]he rules of disciplinary conduct measure the ethical behavior of the members of the bar by the standard of the reasonable lawyer because a subjective approach would permit lawyers to defend the most wanton and scurrilous attacks upon innocent third parties by stating that they personally believed it was true. Consequently, an objective standard, which examines the factual basis for the assertion, is necessary to protect the public, the profession and the courts. [Citations omitted]
The Board found that Adams violated six Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 3.3(a)(1) (false statement to a tribunal); 3.5(a) (influence a tribunal by means prohibited by law); 3.5(d) (conduct disruptive of a tribunal); 8.2(a) (false statement as to integrity of a judge); 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty); and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The Board found significant aggravation in Adams’s failure to recognize and accept responsibility for her serious misconduct and lack of remorse. The only mitigating factor was her lack of prior discipline.
The Board surveyed prior cases of misrepresentations and concluded that the precedents pointed to a lengthy suspension or disbarment. The Board concluded that “the volume and malicious nature of Adams’ false allegations against judges over a period of four years that continue to the present time” warranted a five-year suspension. By Order dated April 17, 2026, the Supreme Court accepted this recommendation and suspended Adams for five years, denying her request for oral argument.
Lawyer Agrees to Suspension for Practice While Administratively Suspended
A Philadelphia lawyer consented to suspension of his license based on admissions that he continued to practice while on administrative suspension and failed to notify interested people of the change in his status.
Thomas McCarthy was placed on administrative suspension by order of the Supreme Court dated November 13, 2024, effective December 13, 2024, for failing to meet Continuing Legal Education requirements.
At the time, he was employed by a Philadelphia law firm with an active civil litigation practice. He continued to engage in legal services past the effective date of his suspension despite letters of notification from both the Disciplinary Board and the CLE Board. He represented clients in 137 cases, including appearing in court in thirty-seven matters and conducting depositions in three. He failed to notify the law firm, his clients, judges, opposing counsel, or third parties of his suspension. After more than six months, the law firm learned of his suspension and immediately terminated his employment.
McCarthy agreed that this conduct violated three Rules of Professional Conduct and two Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. He expressed remorse for his conduct and cooperated with the disciplinary inquiry. He agreed to a disposition of disciplinary suspension for one year and one day which will require him to file a petition for reinstatement and prove his fitness to practice in order for his law license to be restored. On the recommendation of a three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Supreme Court imposed the recommended discipline.
ABA Opinion: Lawyers Have Duty to Disclose Judge’s Conflict of Interest
Lawyers have a duty to disclose information which may show a conflict of interest on the part of a judge, according to a new ethics opinion published by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.
Formal Opinion 522, dated April 8, 2026, addresses a lawyer’s obligations when the lawyer knows of information that may be evidence of a conflict of interest on the part of a judge, but the judge does not disclose the information.
The Opinion notes that judges are expected to raise facts which may be cause for recusal questions themselves. However, if the judge fails to do so, the opinion states that Model Rule 8.4(d) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits attorneys from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, may require attorneys with knowledge of such facts to reveal them. The Opinion discusses four examples of situations in which such disclosure may be required, including prior employment connections, campaign contributions, a spouse’s law firm involvement, and a counsel’s business relationship with a judge’s family member.
The opinion notes that such a duty to disclose is subject to the requirements of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6 which prohibits revealing client information without the client’s informed consent.
Normally, the opinion states, such disclosures should be addressed to the judge, with notice to opposing counsel. In certain instances, reporting to a chief judge or administrative authority may be more appropriate.
In conclusion, the Committee stated, “When a lawyer in a proceeding possesses information that the lawyer knows is reasonably likely to give rise to a judicial disqualification obligation, Model Rule 8.4(d) requires the lawyer, as an officer of the court, to disclose that information to the tribunal. When the lawyer possesses the information only because it is ‘information relating to the representation of a client’ then the lawyer’s disclosure obligation is subject to the duty of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6.”
Note that this ABA Formal Opinion is advisory only. It is not binding on the Disciplinary Board, the PA Supreme Court, or any other Court..
Adventures in AI: Sanctions, Resignations, and a Warning
Lawyers continue to experience problems based on the use (and misuse) of Artificial Intelligence tools in legal research.
Two lawyers employed by the city of New Orleans resigned after a court found that they had used falsified citations generated by AI in a court filing. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana ordered the attorneys to appear in court after he discovered the false citations in a motion filed by one of them. An Assistant City Attorney admitted during the hearing that he used ChatGPT to research the motion and failed to read them or verify they were genuine before including them in the brief. His supervising attorney confessed that he read the motion and approved it without checking the citations despite formatting issues that should have alerted him that something was wrong. The judge issued sanctions of $250 against the Assistant Attorney and $1000 against his supervisor, holding that the supervisor’s culpability was greater because of his experience in the practice of law. Both attorneys subsequently resigned, and the City Attorney’s Office announced a new AI policy mandating disclosure of any use of AI in the production of work product.
A Federal Judge in Oregon levied the largest fines and attorney fees order in the state’s history against two lawyers who filed documents filled with fake cases and fabricated citations and also dismissed their client’s case with prejudice. U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a total of $110,000 in fines and attorneys’ fees against the two lawyers who represented a woman suing her brothers over control of a winery. The court found that there was “circumstantial” but “persuasive” evidence showing that the plaintiff may have generated the AI briefs herself, given her history as a self-represented litigant. But the court found the attorneys who signed their names to the material were ultimately liable for work filed under their signatures. The court viewed as an aggravating factor that the attorneys attempted to cover up the misconduct by deleting the fake cases and refiling the briefs. One of the attorneys, a corporate lawyer in poor health, was working the case for free because his son was dating the plaintiff.
The use of a legal AI resource by the client highlights a risk recently found in a ruling in a case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In preparation of his defense, the client gave information from his communications with his lawyers to the chatbot Claude to develop a report on his case. The District Court ruled that, because of this sharing, these communications were not covered by attorney-client privilege and had to be disclosed to prosecutors. Several firms are now routinely warning their clients that the disclosure of privileged information to internet AI chatbots may negate privileges and expose that information to disclosure and discovery.
Bear with Us: Human in Bear Suit Key to Insurance Fraud Case
Three California residents pleaded no contest to charges of insurance fraud after a wildlife expert concluded that damage to an expensive car they attributed to a bear was, in fact, the work of "clearly a human in a bear suit."
The individuals filed with three separate insurance companies over damages to a Rolls Royce and two Mercedes vehicles. Company officials found a video of the event suspicious, and a biologist who viewed the video expressed the opinion that the party that broke into the Rolls was, in fact, human. Law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant and found the costume in a suspect’s closet.
The defendants were sentenced to 180 days in jail and payment of restitution. The claims totaled $141,839.
Yes, there is a video.
|
|
|
Attorney Well-Being
May Is Mental Health Awareness Month
The legal profession provides its practitioners with great opportunity, pride, and responsibility. It also often entails a variety of challenges and stressors and, for many, can cultivate vicarious trauma, anxiety, depression, or substance dependence. It is well-known throughout the legal community that the occurrence of mental health issues and problematic alcohol use is significantly higher amongst those in this profession than within the general population nationwide.
The toll that unchecked aggravators take on the physical, mental, and emotional health of an individual cannot be overstated. It can have tremendous consequences in one’s personal life and may create patterns of behavior effectuating professional misconduct and necessitating discipline.
However, no lawyer, no individual, is alone. Throughout May’s Mental Health Awareness Month, we are reminded that, whether an obstacle is seemingly small or insurmountable, there are resources available for each individual’s needs and situation. The Disciplinary Board is grateful that lawyer assistance is abundant in Pennsylvania year-round thanks to the truly exceptional efforts of our friends at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania.
The annual Well-Being Week in Law was also held from Monday, May 4th through Friday, May 8th. This year’s celebration highlighted the theme of "Tending Joy," promoting the cultivation of joy and building of resiliency even during times of adversity. Each day of the observance focused on a different dimension of well-being, including physical, spiritual, career and intellectual, social, and emotional well-being, and offered meaningful activities and practical tips to foster the day’s key idea.
Throughout this month, please take time to visit the Disciplinary Board’s “Lawyer Well-Being” webpage which serves as a hub connecting Pennsylvania attorneys with available resources to better understand and support their mental health and well-being, particularly as they relate to the legal profession.
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 Highlights the Rule of Law in Honor of Law Day
On May 1 st, Pennsylvania Chief Justice Debra Todd honored Law Day by highlighting the rule of law in the Commonwealth and across the United States. Chief Justice Todd noted, “On Law Day, the Justices of our Supreme Court reflect on the shared commitment to the rule of law that binds us together. It is the very principle that ensures fairness, protects individual rights, and holds all of us, individuals and institutions alike, accountable to the same standards.”
The Chief Justice also emphasized the importance of civics education in maintenance of the rule of law and of a solid legal system, stating, “This Law Day, I encourage all Pennsylvanians to take time to learn more about our courts, our Constitution, and the rights and responsibilities we share, especially as we celebrate America250 and the 250th Anniversary of our Pennsylvania Constitution.”
Law Day was first established in 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, recognizing that guaranteed fundamental rights of each individual under the law is “the heart and sinew of our nation” and distinguishing the American governmental system from those that “rule by might alone.”
Pennsylvania Courts Holds Fourth Annual Take Your Child to Work Day
On Friday, April 17 th, the Pennsylvania Courts held its fourth annual Take Your Child to Work Day. Children spent the morning with Sen. Patty Kim and Rep. Tom Mehaffie, learning about how laws are made, and then magisterial district judges explained how the court system works. The students then collected stamps at various activity stations which included conducting fingerprint analysis, meeting courthouse therapy dogs, learning court reporting skills, and more.
Pennsylvania Chief Justice Debra Todd explained, “By opening our doors, we hope to spark curiosity, build understanding and give students a firsthand look at the important work their parents do, while encouraging them to consider future careers in public service.”
The full press release is available on the Unified Judicial System’s website.
Access the UJS online civics education toolkit on its outreach webpage.
Unified Judicial System Highlights Its Mental Health Courts
In conjunction with Mental Health Awareness Month, the Unified Judicial System (UJS) recently published a new infographic bringing attention to its now-thirty successful mental health courts throughout the state. These treatment courts, focused on diversion, "offer defendants the opportunity to avoid incarceration through the completion of a rigorous program that requires compliance with community supervision and mandated treatment." The graphic notes that seventy-two percent of those admitted successfully complete the program in two years or less and that there was a 112 percent increase in employment amongst all graduates.
Read the full press release and access the infographic here on the UJS website. Learn more about PA's mental health courts here.
Your Investment in Access to Justice
The Pennsylvania IOLTA Board provides annual grant funding to more than thirty legal aid organizations providing free civil legal representation to low-income individuals and victims of abuse.
One hundred percent of donations from private attorneys and law firms goes directly to fund civil legal aid across the Commonwealth. To see who donated last year and learn more about civil legal aid in PA, check out the PA IOLTA Board’s 2025 Annual Report.
Contribute to civil legal aid when you complete your annual attorney registration or anytime online. Your support makes it possible for IOLTA-funded civil legal aid organizations to serve more people in need.
|
|
|
From the Pennsylvania Bar Association
Annual Meeting Wrap‑Up & Introduction of the 2026–27 Board of Directors
The Pennsylvania Bar Association concluded its 2026 Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh with a renewed commitment to strengthening the profession and expanding access to justice across the Commonwealth. Members from every corner of Pennsylvania gathered to celebrate the association’s accomplishments, honor outgoing leaders and welcome the 2026–27 Board of Directors, a group whose collective experience reflects the PBA’s mission and values.
Leading the Board is President James R. Antoniono of Westmoreland County, a longtime PBA volunteer whose service spans key committees, sections, and leadership roles. A partner at DeBernardo, Antoniono, McCabe and Davis PC, Antoniono previously served as PBA treasurer and chaired the Finance, Investment and Planning Committees. His background includes service as a zone governor, president, and treasurer of the Conference of County Bar Leaders and four years of active-duty Army service during which he earned the Army Commendation Medal. He begins his presidency with a focus on strengthening member engagement and supporting the association’s broad statewide initiatives.
Samuel G. Encarnacion serves as president‑elect of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. Encarnacion has previously served as co‑chair of the Minority Bar Committee and co‑vice chair of the Technology Committee, contributing to key initiatives that strengthen member engagement and advance the association’s mission. He earned both his undergraduate degree and Juris Doctor from the University of Texas and its School of Law. Encarnacion brings a deep commitment to service, leadership development and broadening pathways for participation within the PBA.
Serving as Vice President is Hon. Cheryl L. Austin of Montgomery County. A retired U.S. Navy Captain, Judge Austin brings decades of leadership, public service, and judicial experience to the Board. She has long credited the PBA with enriching her professional and personal life, and she looks forward to expanding opportunities for members to connect and grow.
Immediate-Past President Kristen B. Hamilton of Franklin County transitions into her new role after a year marked by steady leadership and statewide engagement. Hamilton will continue supporting incoming leaders and reinvesting in the committees where her PBA journey began.
House of Delegates Chair Philip H. Yoon of Philadelphia County continues his distinguished service to the association. As Chief Staff Attorney of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Yoon has spent his career supporting the judiciary and mentoring emerging leaders. He hopes to inspire more attorneys to participate in PBA governance and to discover the sense of community that has shaped his own involvement.
The Board also welcomes Treasurer Jonathan D. Koltash of Dauphin County, Deputy General Counsel for Healthcare for the Governor’s Office of General Counsel. Koltash brings experience before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, leadership in the House of Delegates, and service as president of the Dauphin County Bar Association. He is committed to ensuring the PBA’s financial strength and long-term sustainability.
Norris E. Benns, Jr. serves as secretary of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. Benns earned his bachelor’s degree from Hampton University and his Juris Doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law. He brings a strong commitment to service, professionalism, and member engagement to his role on the Board. Benns is dedicated to supporting the PBA’s mission and strengthening the association’s statewide community of attorneys.
Rounding out the Board are Minority Governors Gabriela G. Raful and Riley H. Ross III, Unit County Governor Allen D. Andrascik, and Woman Governor Stephanie F. Latimore—leaders dedicated to representation, professionalism, and expanding opportunities for all PBA members. Zone governors include:
- Jennifer S. Coatsworth - Zone 1 Governor
- Armin Feldman - Zone 2 Governor
- Paul D. Edger - Zone 3 Governor
- Jessica M. Lehman - Zone 4 Governor
- Hillary A. Madden - Zone 5 Governor
- Maureen S. Kroll - Zone 6 Governor
- Sara J. Flasher - Zone 7 Governor
- Krystal T. Edwards - Zone 8 Governor
- Carol A. Shelly - Zone 9 Governor
- Michael J. Pater - Zone 10 Governor
- Daniel C. McKenrick - Zone 11 Governor
- Rodney R. Akers - Zone 12 Governor
The Board’s YLD leadership includes Schawnne K. Kilgus as Chair, Lance D. J. Greene as Chair-Elect, and Adrianne Peters Sipes as Immediate-Past Chair—each bringing a strong commitment to young lawyers and the future of the profession.
Together, the 2026–2027 Board embodies the PBA’s enduring commitment to service, leadership, and the advancement of justice across Pennsylvania.
Not a PBA Member? Join a statewide network of attorneys committed to professional excellence, connection, and advocacy. The PBA supports members’ practice with cutting-edge CLEs, timely legal resources, leadership opportunities, and a strong collective voice for the profession. Join the PBA today and save twenty-five percent on 2026 membership!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
