Wednesday, July 28, 2021
An attorney admitted in 1977 has been suspended for two years by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a matter that was initiated by a trust account overdraft.
The court denied the attorney's request for oral argument
Respondent’s request for oral argument and Petition for Review are DENIED. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(e)(4) (providing that an attorney has no right to oral argument in disciplinary matters unless the recommendation is for disbarment).
From the Disciplinary Review Board report
The disciplinary precedent supports the imposition of a two year period of suspension in this matter to impress upon Respondent that this Board and the Court will not countenance his continued wrongful conduct. Respondent is an unrepentant recidivist whose attitude throughout these proceedings has been one of condescension and indignation. His demeanor and testimony reflected no contrition or regret for his misconduct, now or in the past. Respondent's checkered history shows that he is unwilling to conform his practice to the standards expected of Pennsylvania attorneys. Despite Respondent's attempts to persuade the Board otherwise, his repeated transgressions are not meaningless or insignificant. Given Respondent's extensive history of discipline for similar infractions and because we find no evidence of record to demonstrate that Respondent's misconduct will cease, a lengthy suspension is warranted to protect the public and preserve the reputation of the legal profession.