Monday, September 30, 2013

Look Back In Anger

An attorney who engaged in misconduct while and after working as an associate at several law firms has consented to a 30-month suspension, which was imposed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

According to the Disciplinary Board

...there are no cases that have precisely the amalgamation of misconduct presented here: improper solicitation of potential clients; mishandling of law firm funds; signing an attorney's name to the back of settlement checks; frivolous litigation; and neglect of client matters. Respondents's misconduct merits, at a minimum, public discipline.

Respondent's relentless litigation directed at pressuring his prior employers into sharing funds with Respondent, callous disregard for the administration of justice, and receipt of court-ordered sanctions for his litigious conduct [is compared to prior cases for sanction purposes]

...In the final analysis, most of Respondent's misconduct is inter-related and encompasses differnt permutations of Respondent's ongoing efforts to obtain funds from his former employer to which Respondent was not entitled....consistent with precedent, a thirty-month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline to be imposed to protect the public and the courts, as well as to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct upon acrimoniously departing from a law firm.

 The attorney was admitted in 2002 and was employed by three firms over a two-year period. (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Look Back In Anger:


Post a comment