No. 1328 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Nos. 1328 and 1792 Disciplinary Docket No.3 Nos. 171 DB 2007, 169 DB 2008 and 187 DB 2011 W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, Respondent Attorney Registration No. 281 05 (Allegheny County) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 251h day of September, 2013, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated May 13, 2013, the Joint Petition and Supplemental Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent are hereby granted pursuant to Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E., and it is ORDERED that W. Christopher Conrad is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of eighteen months retroactive to August 22, 2012, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. ·1nrue Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 9/25/L013 ~- }'&cJ!.J ' 0 Attest: Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Nos. 1328 & 1792 Disciplinary Docket No.3 Petitioner Nos. 171 DB 2007; 169 DB 2008 & 187 DB 2011 v. Attorney Registration No. 28105 W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD Respondent (Allegheny County) RECOMMENDATION OF THREE-MEMBER PANEL OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, consisting of Board Members Stephan K. Todd, Jane G. Penny and David A Nasatir, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter on March 13, 2013. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to an 18 month suspension retroactive to August 22, 2012 and recommends to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that the attached Petition be granted. The Panel further recommends that any necessary expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter shall be paid by the respondent-attorney as a condition to the grant of the Petition. Date: 5/t3 l2o f3 Stephan K. Todd, Panel Chair The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, :No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court Petitioner :Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and :No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3 -Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011 - Disciplinary : Board W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, :Attorney Registration No. 28105 Respondent : (Allegheny County) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL David M. Lame Disciplinary Counsel Suite 1300, Frick Building 437 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 565-3173 and W. Christopher Conrad Respondent 2700 Broadway Avenue Apt. 7 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 John E. Quinn, Esquire Counsel for Respondent Portnoy & Quinn, LLC Three Gateway Ctr. Ste. 2325 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 765-3800 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, :No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court Petitioner :Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and :No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3 - Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011 -Disciplinary : Board W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, Respondent :Attorney Registration No. 28105 : (Allegheny County) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, by Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and David M. Lame, Disciplinary Counsel, John E. Quinn, Esquire, Counsel for Respondent, and Respondent, W. Christopher Conrad, file this Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent Under Rule 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. and respectfully represent as follows: 1. Petitioner, whose principal office is located at Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Suite 2700, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, P.O. Box 62485, Harrisburg, PA 17106-2485, is invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereafter "Pa.R.D.E."), with the power a~ 'h~d~y Po MAR 1 3 2013 Offic·s of th:.; Gocrctt..ry Tho O:scfplim::ry Bcz:d cf 1:1e Suprema Court of Pcr:r.sy1v:mla investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions of the aforesaid Rules. 2. Respondent, W. Christopher Conrad, was born on June 4, 1949. He was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on October 17, 1978. Respondent's current attorney registration mailing address is 2700 Broadway Avenue, Apt. 7, Pittsburgh, PA 15216. 3. By Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated August 22, 2012, Respondent was placed on temporary suspension. 4. Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED Nos. 171 DB 2007 and 169 DB 2008 (Probation Violation) 5. On November 13, 2003, Respondent was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance, and related summary traffic offenses. 6. On January 21, 2004, a Criminal Information was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CC200400018, 2 against Respondent charging him with one count of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance in violation of the then existing 75 Pa.C.S. §3731 (a)(4)(i), and the summary traffic offenses of Registration and Certificate of Title Required, 75 Pa.C.S. §1301 (a), and Operation of Vehicle Without an Official Certificate of Inspection, 75 Pa.C.S. §4703. 7. On January 17, 2007, Respondent, represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to one count of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or a Controlled Substance in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3731(a)(4)(i) and was immediately sentenced to the following: (a) Thirty (30) days intermediate punishment on electronic monitoring effective when available, followed by twenty-two (22) months probation; (b) Undergo an alcohol evaluation and complete a regional alcohol program; (c) Granted work release; and, (d) Pay all costs of the prosecution. 8. A Petition for Discipline was filed which Respondent answered by admitting all of the averments made therein. 9. A prehearing conference was held on June 24, 2008 and a disciplinary hearing was held on July 29, 2008. 3 10. While awaiting the preparation of the notes of testimony, Respondent, by letter of October 9, 2008, notified the Office of the Secretary that on October 8, 2008 he had entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced on another offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Controlled Substance (75 Pa.C.S. §3802(c)) and Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Controlled Substance (75 Pa.C.S. §3802(a)(1 )) at Allegheny County Criminal Case No. CC 200710497. 11. On October 8, 2008, Respondent was sentenced to serve a mandatory sentence of: (a) Fifteen (15) months intermediate punishment on electronic monitoring as arranged; (b) Serve twenty-four (24) months probation effective October 8, 2008; (c) Work release was granted; (d) Undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation, complying with all terms and conditions imposed by the Allegheny County Adult Probation Office; (e) Pay a mandatory fine of $2,500 plus costs; (f) On the summary offense of driving while operating privileges suspended and BAC (blood alcohol content) is greater than .02 4 percent, (75 Pa.C.S. §1543(b)(1.1 )(i)) to the mandatory sentence as follows: (i) Ninety (90) days intermediate punishment on electronic monitoring concurrent to the sentence imposed for the conviction of 75 Pa.C.S. §3802(c); (ii) Pay a mandatory fine of $1 ,000; (iii) Complete a drug and alcohol evaluation; and, (iv) Be permitted work release. 12. On November 13, 2008, the Disciplinary Board, having reviewed and approved a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent, directed that Respondent as a result of his two separate convictions in Allegheny County at No. CC 200400018 and No. CC 200710497, receive a private reprimand and be placed on probation for a period of two years subject to certain conditions. 13. Respondent's probation began on January 1, 2009. 14. As one of the conditions of his probation, Respondent was to abstain from using alcohol or any other mind-altering chemical. 15. The Disciplinary Board directed that Respondent's compliance was to be monitored by a Sobriety Monitor appointed by the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Disciplinary Board Rule §89.293(c). 5 16. On March 26, 2009, the private reprimand with the attendant conditions of probation was administered. 17. By letter dated January 27, 2010, Elaine M. Bixler, Secretary of the Disciplinary Board, notified Chief Disciplinary Counsel that Respondent may have violated the terms and conditions of his probation by his continued use of alcohol. 18. By subsequent correspondence from Ms. Bixler to Chief Disciplinary Counsel dated February 1, 2010, and April 29, 2010, copies of letters from the Board's Sobriety Monitor to the Secretary were provided to Chief Disciplinary Counsel. The February 1 and April 29, 2010 letters set forth the circumstances of Respondent's violation of the Board's probation as well as Respondent's inpatient treatment at Gateway Rehabilitation Center and his outpatient treatment at Greenbriar Treatment Center resulting from his continued use of alcohol. 19. By letter to the Respondent dated July 30, 2010, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel informed the Respondent that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel had concluded its investigation into the instances of Respondent violating the conditions of his probation and it was determined that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel would not pursue a probation violation proceeding. 20. By letter dated October 25, 2010, Ms. Bixler notified Chief Disciplinary Counsel that Respondent, in his probation report dated October 7, 6 2010, reported and admitted to again violating the conditions of his probation, by his consumption of alcohol on September 28, 2010. 21. On November 30, 2010, Petitioner filed its first Petition to Schedule a Probation Violation Hearing in which it was alleged that Respondent violated the conditions of his probation. 22. A hearing was held on December 7, 2010 before a Designated Disciplinary Board Member who issued a Report in which it was recommended that Respondent's probation be extended for one year along with other modifications to the manner and frequency Respondent was to communicate with the Board-appointed Sobriety Monitor. 23. Neither party took exception to the Report and Recommendation. 24. By Order dated January 25, 2011, the Disciplinary Board ordered that Respondent's probation and attendant conditions be extended for one (1) year along with other modifications to the manner and frequency by which Respondent was to communicate with the Board-appointed Sobriety Monitor. 25. A copy of the January 25, 2011 Order was sent to the Respondent and the Sobriety Monitor by Ms. Bixler. 26. By letter dated May 10, 2011, to both the Respondent and the Sobriety Monitor, Ms. Bixler explained that Respondent's probation had been extended for an additional quarter because he had failed to accept a prior 7 certified mailing from Ms. Bixler containing the modified language and terms of his probation. 27. The July 2011 quarterly reports from the Sobriety Monitor and Respondent to the Office of the Secretary for the first time referenced Respondent's arrest in May of 2011 for alcohol related crimes. 28. Respondent's July quarterly report received by the Office of the Secretary on July 7, 2011, contained no reference of an April 6, 2011 conviction. 29. Respondent entered Gateway Rehabilitation Center as an inpatient on July 5, 2011 and was discharged on July 29, 2011. 30. On October 26, 2011, Petitioner filed a second Petition to Schedule a Probation Violation Hearing, in which it was alleged that Respondent had again violated the terms and conditions of his probation by his use of alcohol which led to the May 2011 arrest. 31. On October 26, 2011, a true and correct copy of the Petition to Schedule a Probation Violation Hearing was personally served upon Respondent. 32. Pursuant to Rule 208(h), Pa.R.D.E., the Disciplinary Board by Order dated October 27, 2011, directed that a hearing be held on November 9, 2011. 33. Prior to the hearing, Petitioner and John E. Quinn, Esquire, counsel for the Respondent, executed a Stipulation in which it was stipulated that 8 Respondent's conduct, as described in the Petition to Schedule a Probation Violation, was in violation of the terms and conditions of the probation imposed by the Disciplinary Board by Order of November 13, 2008, and subsequently modified and extended by Order of the Disciplinary Board dated January 25, 2011. 34. Because the Stipulation included the parties' consent to the commencement of a formal proceeding against Respondent, pursuant to Rule 208(h)(2), Pa.R.D.E., no hearing was held. 35. The Designated Member of the Disciplinary Board prepared a Report and Recommendation based upon the Petitioner's filing and the parties' Stipulation. 36. By Order dated November 18, 2011, the Disciplinary Board ordered that formal proceedings be commenced against Respondent in accordance with Rule 208(h)(2), Pa.R.D.E. 37. As Respondent stipulated that his conduct described in the Petition to Schedule a Probation Violation Hearing violated the terms and conditions of his probation imposed by the Disciplinary Board in its original Order of November of 2009, and subsequently reaffirmed and modified in January of 2011, and the Disciplinary Board accepted the Stipulation, all that remained was for the Hearing Committee to recommend an appropriate disciplinary sanction. 9 38. A Petition for Discipline was filed and Respondent, through counsel, filed a timely Answer, and a request to be heard in mitigation. 39. Following a prehearing conference on April 24, 2012, a disciplinary hearing was held on June 8, 2012. 40. After the disciplinary hearing, Respondent's counsel and Disciplinary Counsel deposed Respondent's treating therapist, Robin Witt, on June 19, 2012. 41. Respondent began treating with Ms. Witt on April 5, 2012. 42. Ms. Witt initially diagnosed Respondent as having a generalized anxiety disorder coupled with alcohol abuse. 43. Respondent, in addition to his therapy with Ms. Witt, has continued in his participation with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and AA. 44. Respondent has had at least a twelve-year history of alcohol abuse. 45. Respondent engaged in efforts to obtain treatment for his alcoholism by enrolling at inpatient treatment programs and outpatient treatment programs at both Gateway and Greenbriar. 46. Respondent continues to receive individualized cognitive behavioral therapy from a professional therapist in an effort to maintain his sobriety. 47. Disciplinary Counsel recommended in Petitioner's brief to the Hearing Committee that an appropriate disciplinary sanction for a second violation of 10 probation was a suspension of two years (stayed in its entirety) coupled with a two-year period of probation. 48. Respondent through his counsel agreed with Disciplinary Counsel's recommendation as did the Hearing Committee in their Report and Recommendation to the Disciplinary Board. 49. The Disciplinary Board has not yet adjudicated the matter. No. 187 DB 2011 (April 2011 Conviction) 50. On April 6, 2011, Respondent while on probation imposed by the Disciplinary Board, entered a plea of guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case number CP-02-CR-0000617 -2011 to the charges of Illegally Operating a Motor Vehicle Not Equipped with Ignition Interlock in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3308(a)(2), and Driving While Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked and Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) is Greater than .02 percent in violation of75 Pa.C.S. §1543(b)(1.1)(i). 51. The crime of Illegally Operating a Motor Vehicle Not Equipped with Ignition Interlock While Having a Blood Alcohol Content Equal to or Greater than .025 percent is graded as a misdemeanor of the third degree which is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of not more than one (1) year, (18 Pa.C.S.A. §1 06(b)(8)). 11 52. The crime of Driving While Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked while having an amount of alcohol by weight equal to or greater than .02 percent has a mandatory sentence of imprisonment of not more than 90 days and is graded as a summary offense. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §106(c)(2) 53. On April 6, 2011, after his plea of guilty was accepted, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Beth Lazzara sentenced Respondent on each offense to concurrent terms of County Intermediate Punishment for 90 days. Respondent was also placed on a period of probation, supervised by the Allegheny County Adult Probation Office, for a maximum of six months, ordered to pay a fine of $1,000, directed to pay all applicable fees and costs, granted release for work, school or medical purposes, and again directed not to operate a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license and/or ignition interlock. A summary motor vehicle charge was withdrawn. 54. Respondent did not comply with Rule 214(a), Pa.R.D.E., by reporting his April 6, 2011 conviction to the Office of the Secretary. 55. Notice of Respondent's April 6, 2011 conviction and a request for the issuance of a Rule to Show Cause pursuant to Rule 214, Pa.R.D.E., was filed with the Supreme Court. 56. On August 22, 2012, the Supreme Court issued an Order placing Respondent on temporary suspension and referring the matter of his criminal conviction of April 6, 2011 to the Disciplinary Board. 12 57. A Petition for Discipline was filed and Respondent through his counsel filed a timely Answer, in which he admitted the allegations. 58. A prehearing conference was held on January 30, 2013 and a disciplinary hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2013. ADDITIONAL STIPULATED FACTS BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER 59. Respondent is a veteran of the U.S. Military, having served in the 82"d Airborne Division. 60. Respondent saw a tour of duty in Southeast Asia, was wounded in South Vietnam in 1971, and as a result of his injury was honorably discharged. 61. Respondent graduated from Duquesne University School of Law and was admitted to practice in this Commonwealth in 1978. 62. Respondent worked for the Allegheny County Office of the District Attorney from 1978 through 1998. He became the Deputy District Attorney in charge of homicide in 1983. 63. Respondent has represented the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) in federal litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. 64. Respondent was, when on active status, in private practice. 13 65. Respondent is a past President of the Allegheny County Bar Association. 66. Respondent lectures on death penalty and capital cases, and is a presenter for various CLE programs. 67. Respondent is married. 68. Respondent has physical problems (arthritis) with his knee, specifically the one wounded in Vietnam. 69. Respondent has had both a hip and knee replacement and a staph infection from the knee surgery. AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION A. Aggravation 70. Respondent is a defendant in four additional pending criminal matters before the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County: CP-02-CR-001 05432011, CP-02-CR-001 0544-2011; CP-02-CR-0001876-2012, CP-02-CR-00134822012. 71. Each of the pending criminal matters in Allegheny County came about because of Respondent's alcohol abuse and addiction. 72. In each of the pending criminal matters in Allegheny County, Respondent is represented by counsel. 14 B. Mitigation 73. Respondent has cooperated with Petitioner. 74. Respondent has acknowledged he is a defendant in pending criminal cases, that he violated the terms and conditions of his Disciplinary Board probation and he accepts responsibility for those actions. 75. Respondent is remorseful for his actions and any negative impact it may have caused to the profession. 76. Respondent has been sober since July 5, 2011. 77. Respondent has been treating with a cognitive behavioral therapist, Robin Witt, since April 5, 2012. 78. Respondent's witnesses testified during the June 2012 disciplinary hearing that Respondent has a good reputation as a lawyer in the Allegheny County legal community. 79. Respondent's criminal matters have all been personal to Respondent and no client has been involved or harmed. 80. Respondent and Office of Disciplinary Counsel agree to this Joint Petition and recommended disciplinary sanction for all presently pending matters at the Disciplinary Board numbers listed and the Allegheny County pending 15 criminal cases listed above, because it will allow Respondent to focus on his sobriety and put these disciplinary issues behind him. PRECEDENTS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINARY SANCTION The cases concerning multiple convictions of an attorney for driving under the influence of alcohol have resulted in a range of discipline. Each case is fact specific. In the matter of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Robert Toland, II, No. 101 DB 2003, Respondent Toland was initially charged with driving under the influence on four separate occasions. The nature of the crimes warranted a sanction other than the usual private reprimand. The Supreme Court suspended Mr. Toland frorn the practice of Jaw for a period of two years with the suspension being stayed in its entirety, and he was placed on probation subject to certain terms and conditions. After a violation of those terms and conditions, the parties submitted a Joint Petition for Discipline on Consent, agreeing that a probation violation hearing need not be held as a result of the Supreme Court's Order imposing a stayed suspension. The Disciplinary Board approved the Joint Petition, and the Supreme Court agreed. Mr. Toland's probation was revoked and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The case of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mark Eugene Johnston, Nos. 160 DB 2002, 69 DB 2003 and 89 DB 2003 is very similar to the instant matter due to Respondent's Johnston's series of criminal convictions in which 16 alcohol was the main focus. Respondent Johnston did not exhibit remorse, and presented no mitigating factors other than having no prior disciplinary history. Although a Hearing Committee had recommended a suspension of three years, a majority of the Disciplinary Board recommend to the Supreme Court that Respondent Johnston be suspended for two years. The Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension. In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Flaherty, No. 128 DB 1996 (1998), Mr. Flaherty received a suspension of one year and one day after entering a guilty plea to three counts of Driving Under the Influence. He had been arrested twice for Driving Under the Influence prior to his admission to the Bar and had received ARD for the first arrest. In determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction, the Disciplinary Board considered that Mr. Flaherty, while admitting to alcohol abuse, did not seek help or counseling for the problem nor did he show remorse or contrition for his actions. He also failed to provide sufficient evidence to show the alcohol abuse and its causal relationship to his misconduct. The Disciplinary Board recommended that the attorney receive a public censure, but on March 25, 1998, the Supreme Court ordered the more severe' punishment of suspension for one year and one day. It is the recommendation of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel that for the pending matters at 171 DB 2007, 169 DB 2008 and 187 DB 2011, and the matters now before the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Respondent, 17 because of his mitigation, and treatment, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months retroactive to the effective date of his temporary suspension. Respondent's continued sobriety will be an issue in any petition for reinstatement proceedings. Respondent is to pay costs as determined by the Board and Supreme Court. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL cJj tf«~._ By David M. Lame · Disciplinary Counsel John '.Quinn, Esquire Counsel for Respondent 18 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, :No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court Petitioner :Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and :No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011 -Disciplinary : Board W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, :Attorney Registration No. 28105 Respondent : (Allegheny County) VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent Under Rule 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. are true and correct to the best of our knowledge or information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. s- 5-13 Date Date · ' . Date John/E. Quinn, Esquire Counsel for Respondent BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, :No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court Petitioner :Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and :No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011- Disciplinary : Board W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, Respondent :Attorney Registration No. 28105 : (Allegheny County) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Respondent, W. Christopher Conrad, hereby states that he consents to the sanction of a suspension for a period of eighteen (18) months retroactive to the effective date of his temporary suspension as jointly recommended by Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and Respondent in the Joint Petition In Support Of Discipline On Consent and further states that: 1. His consent is freely and voluntarily rendered; he is not being subjected to coercion or duress; and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting the consent; 2. He is represented by counsel in these disciplinary proceedings and has consulted with his counsel prior to executing the Joint Petition; 3. He is aware that there are pending proceedings involving allegations that he has been guilty of misconduct as set forth in the Joint Petition; 4. He acknowledges that the material facts set forth in the Joint Petition are true; and, 5. He consents because he knows that if charges upon the matters under investigation and the pending proceedings continued to be prosecuted he could not successfully defend against them. Sworn to and subscribed before me this :;- cr; day of /1(~/u-4 , 2013. 2 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, :No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court Petitioner :Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and :No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011 -Disciplinary : Board :Attorney Registration No. 28105 W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, Respondent : (Allegheny County) CONSENT ORDER AND NOW this _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2013, Respondent W. Christopher Conrad while represented by John E. Quinn, Esquire acknowledges and consents to the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent and the recommended disciplinary sanction of a suspension for eighteen (18) months retroactive to the effective date of his temporary suspension imposed by the Supreme Court. BY THE BOARD: Board Chair CONSENTED TO: David M. Lame W. C stop er C Respondent rad Jo~io~~ice Counsel for Respondent ' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court Petitioner : Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and : No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011 - Disciplinary : Board W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, :Attorney Registration No. 28105 Respondent : (Allegheny County) SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL David M. Lame Disciplinary Counsel Suite 1300, Frick Building 437 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 565-3173 and W. Christopher Conrad Respondent 2700 Broadway Avenue Apt. 7 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 John E. Quinn, Esquire Counsel for Respondent Portnoy & Quinn, LLC Three Gateway Ctr. Ste. 2325 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 765-3800 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court Petitioner : Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and : No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011 -Disciplinary : Board W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, Respondent : Attorney Registration No. 28105 : (Allegheny County) SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, by Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and David M. Lame, Disciplinary Counsel, John E. Quinn, Esquire, Counsel for Respondent, and Respondent, W. Christopher Conrad, file this Supplemental Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent Under Rule 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. pursuant to the Order entered by the Supreme Court on July 10, 2013, and respectfully represents as follows: 1. The Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent previously approved by a three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board on May 13, 2013, and forwarded to the Supreme Court, is fully incorporated herein. 2. As to the matters at 171 DB 2007, and 169 DB 2008, the specific rules violated by Respondent's misconduct are 203(b)(3) and 203(b)(4), Pa.R.D.E. 3. As to the matter at 187 DB 2011, the specific rules violated by Respondent's misconduct are 203(a), 203(b)(1), and 214(a), Pa.R.D.E. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL :~d (_._j 12_\)v--- John E. uinn, Esquire Counsel for Respondent 2 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3 -Supreme Court Petitioner :Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and : No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3- Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011 - Disciplinary : Board :Attorney Registration No. 28105 W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, Respondent : (Allegheny County) VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Supplemental Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent Under Rule 215(d), Pa.R.O.E. are true and correct to the best of our knowledge or information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. !/ {/ ~:.-v.:,f ('j ,;l" (3 Date Date Date'~ Joh?" . Quinn, Esquire Counsel for Respondent BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, :No. 1328, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3 -Supreme Court Petitioner : Nos. 171 DB 2007 & 169 DB 2008 - Disciplinary Board v. and : No. 1792, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3 -Supreme Court : No. 187 DB 2011 - Disciplinary : Board W. CHRISTOPHER CONRAD, Respondent :Attorney Registration No. 28105 : (Allegheny County) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Respondent, W. Christopher Conrad, hereby states that he consents to the sanction of a suspension for a period of eighteen (18) months retroactive to the effective date of his temporary suspension as jointly recommended by Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and Respondent in the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent and the Supplemental Joint Petition In Support Of Discipline On Consent and further states that: 1. His consent is freely and voluntarily rendered; he is not being subjected to coercion or duress; and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting the consent; 2. He is represented by counsel in these disciplinary proceedings and has consulted with his counsel prior to executing the Joint Petition and the Supplemental Joint Petition; 3. He is aware that there are pending proceedings involving allegations that he has been guilty of misconduct as set forth in the Joint Petition and the Supplemental Joint Petition; 4. He acknowledges that the material facts set forth in the Joint Petition and the Supplemental Joint Petition are true; and, 5. He consents because he knows that if charges upon the matters under investigation and the pending proceedings continued to be prosecuted he could not successfully defend against them. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.