No. 1904, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. BENNETT ELLIOT LANGMAN, Respondent No. 1904 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 128 DB 2012 Attorney Registration No. 205185 (Formerly Philadelphia) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 141h day of February, 2013, there having been filed with this Court by Bennett Elliot Langman his verified Statement of Resignation dated December 3, 2012, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is ORDERED that the resignation of Bennett Elliot Langman is accepted; he is disbarred on consent from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E. A True Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 2/14/L013 ~)1J,UJ.J Att.est: Chtef Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner No. 128DB2012 Attorney Registration No. 205185 v. BENNETT ELLIOT LANGMAN Respondent (Formerly Philadelphia) RESIGNATION BY RESPONDENT Pursuant to Rule 215 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 128 DB 2012 v. Atty. Registration No. 205185 BENNETT ELLIOT LANGMAN Respondent (Formerly Philadelphia) RESIGNATION UNDER Pa.R.D.E. 215 Bennett unconditional Elliot Langman, resignation Commonwealth of Esquire, from Pennsylvania in the hereby practice tenders his law in the Pa.R.D.E. 215 of conformity with ("Enforcement Rules") and further states as follows: 1. He is an attorney admitted in the Commonwealth Pennsylvania, having been admitted to the bar on June 1, 2007. of His attorney registration number is 205185. 2. He desires to submit his resignation as a member of said 3. His resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered; he is bar. not being subjected to coercion or duress; and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting this resignation. 4. He is aware that there is presently pending a formal disciplinary proceeding, the nature of which charges have been made known to him by service of a Petition for Discipline docketed at No. 128 DB 2012, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked "Exhibit A." Fl LED DEC 12 2012 T:h Office of the Secretary e Diaciplfnary Board of Supreme Court of Pen~ 5. He acknowledges that the material facts upon which the allegations of complaint contained in "Exhibit A" are based are true. 6. He submits the within resignation because he knows that if charges were predicated upon the misconduct under investigation, he could not successfully defend himself against them. 7. He is fully aware that the submission of this Resignation Statement is irrevocable and that he can only apply for reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to the provisions of Enforcement Rule 218 (b) and (c·) 8. consult He acknowledges that he is fully aware of his right to and proceeding. employ cou . to rl?resent ~-·--.., -(ov ¢..-1R'[ ~Lt;,- j He has has nof -- him in the retaine"C¥,' @Y'dfi~ulted with, instant and acted / upon the advice of counsel in connection with his decision to execute the within resignation. It is understood that the statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S., Section 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities) . Signed thi0~ ~ day of ' 2012. iot angman, Esquire No. 205185 ~,~·~stration WITNESS:A~~~~~--====~---------- 2 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. \d,<il DB 2012 v. Atty. Reg. No. 205185 BENNETT ELLIOT LANGMAN, Respondent (Formerly Philadelphia) PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Bennett Elliot Langman, Esquire Rule 208 (b) (3) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement provides: Within twenty (20) days of the service of a petition for discipline, the respondent-attorney shall serve an answer upon Disciplinary Counsel and file the original thereof with the Disciplinary Board. Any factual allegation that is not timely answered shall be deemed admitted. Rule 208(b) (4) provides: Following the service of the answer, if there ar~ any issues raised by the pleadings or if. the· respondent-attorney requests the opportunity to be heard in mitigation, the matter shall be assigned to a hearing committee or a special master. No evidence with respect to factual allegations of the complaint that have been deemed or expressly admitted may be presented at any hearing on the matter, absent good cause shown. * * * * * * * * * A copy of your answer should be served upon Disciplinary Counsel at the District I Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Seven Penn Center, 16th Floor, 1635 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and the original and three (3) conformed copies filed with the Office of the Secretary, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 5600, P.O. Box 62625, Harrisburg, PA 17106-2625. [Disciplinary Board Rule §89. 3 (a) (1)] Further, pursuant to Disciplinary Board Rule §85.13, your answer, if it cont.ains an averment of fact not appearing of record or a denial of fact, shall contain or be accompanied by a verifiedstatement signed by you that the averment or denial is true based upon your personal knowledge or information and belief. f ' ¢ > BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. \d.'b DB 2012 v. Atty. Reg. No. 205185 BENNETT ELLIOT LANGMAN, Respondent (Formerly Philadelphia) PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE Petitioner, Killion, Harriet Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Esquire, R. Chief Brumberg, Disciplinary Esquire, by Paul J. Counsel, and Disciplinary Counsel, by files the within Petition for Discipline and charges Respondent, Bennett Elliott Langman, with professional misconduct violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement ( "RPC") in and ( "Pa. R. D. E.") as follows: Petitioner, 1. Pennsylvania Judicial Avenue, P.O. invested, duty to Box pursuant whose principal office is located at Center, 62485, to investigate Suite 2700, Harrisburg, Pa.R.D.E. all 207, matters 601 Commonwealth Pennsylvania, with the power involving is and alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the D C/'',r:·,·: c~ :~·; ~-' 80\.':rc:·::.r~l ~~..; ·:'· 1>':>::~~ · ;;.-,. ~:·:·· c··f th>) ~-~.· ;.::.;{,.J -~·:;..':.;;t ;:,; i:--,~r;n.sy;·;,:;ti~;~~ ( Commonwealth disciplinary various Pennsylvania of proceedings provisions and brought of in accordance Rules said all prosecute to of with the Disciplinary Enforcement. 2. Respondent, Bennett Elliot Langman, was admitted to the practice of law on June 1, 2007. 3. At all relevant times, Respondent engaged in the practice of law Turner, from O'Mara, an office Donnelly & maintained . by McBride, Boulevard, Suite 932, Philadelphia, PA 4. Respondent's current p. c.' Mayfield, JFK 1617 19103. registered public access address is 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 209, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054. 5. subject Pursuant to to the Pa.R.D.E. 201 (a) (1), disciplinary Respondent jurisdiction of is the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. CHARGE I: 6. Respondent was PRACTICE OF LAW employed by the law firm of Mayfield, Turner, O'Mara, Donnelly & McBride (the law Firm) from October 22, 2007 through May 16, 2011. 7. Respondent Philadelphia office, 932, Philadelphia, PA was assigned to the law located at . 1617 JFK Boulevard, 19103. 2 Firm's Suite ;. I ltill 8. While Respondent was employed at Respondent reported to law partner W. the law Firm, Thomas McBride, Esquire. 9. After Respondent left his employment at the law Firm, Respondent failed to change his public access address with the Office of Attorney Registrar, as mandated by Pa.R.D.E. 219 (d) (3). 10. 9 above, By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 6 through Respondent violated the following Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement: a. Pa.R.D.E. which 203 (b) (3)' states that wilful violation of any other provision of the Enforcement Rules, discipline, via shall be grounds for former Pa.R.D.E. 219 (d) (3); and b. Former Pa.R.D.E. effective July 4, 219 (d) (3) 2012], [superseded which states that on or before July 1 of each year all persons required by this rule to pay an annual fee shall file with Office a signed Attorney the form Registration 3 Attorney Registration prescribed Office in by the accordance ' f' ' ' I with the following procedures: who has filed such a form shall notify the Attorney Registration Office any change in the Every person in writing information of previously submitted within 30 days after such change. CHARGE II: THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION A. In 11. assigned to or Melissa around represent (ThyssenKrupp) BULLOCK MATTER in Bullock a in February 2009, ThyssenKrupp personal the Elevator injury Court Respondent Corporation matter brought by Pleas Common of was of Philadelphia County; the case was captioned and docketed at Me~issa Bu~~ock v. ThyssenKrupp E~eva tor Corp. , February Term, 2009 (Philadelphia County) . On 12. Vogin, May Esquire, 14, Respondent 2010, counsel to Ms. No . (Bullock matter) agreed Bullock, 0324 8 , to with Marc resolve the Bullock matter by binding arbitration. 13. to Prior to agreeing to submit the Bullock matter binding arbitration, Respondent failed to obtain permission from ThyssenKrupp and Gloria Schultz, Litigation Manager/Corporate Compliance Officer, Department. 4 ThyssenKrupp Legal 14. the By letter dated May 14, 2010, Honorable Respondent, Howland Mr. Vogin from Mr. Vogin to Abramson, W. advised Judge with a "cc" to Abramson that the parties had agreed to refer the Bullock matter to binding hi/low arbitration. 15. removing On May 17, 2010, Judge Abramson entered an order the Bullock matter from the trial list and transferring the matter to binding arbitration. 16. Respondent failed to inform Ms. Schultz that the court has transferred the Bullock matter to binding hi/low arbitration. 17. On June 23, 2010, Respondent the Bullock matter to Peter A. Dunn, agreed to submit Esquire, as the sole arbiter. 18. On November 30, 2010, Respondent agreed to settle the Bullock matter for $80,000. 19. Prior to agreeing to settle the Bullock matter for $80,000, Respondent failed to obtain the permission of Ms. Schultz or anyone at ThyssenKrupp. 20. Respondent failed to inform Ms. Schultz Respondent had settled the Bullock matter for $80,000. 5 that 21. Pursuant until December 20, to Pa.R.Civ.P. 2010, 229.1, Respondent had to deliver the settlement funds to Ms. Bullock. 22. Respondent delivered the failed settlement to funds ensure to Ms. that ThyssenKrupp Bullock by December 2010. 23. January By emails 19, January from Mr. 2 8, and Vogin to February Respondent, 8, 2 0 11 , Mr. dated Vog in requested prompt payment of the $80,000 settlement funds. 24. By emails January 20, 30, from Respondent and February 10, to 2011, Mr. Vogin, dated Respondent informed Mr. Vogin that: a. Respondent will "light a fire under my client and get it ASAP"; b. "TKE is slow, but you with in this case so I were great to work will try my best to get this ASAP"; and c. Respondent was "[t] remendously embarrassed by my client. sorry and I'm told it· will be soon." 25. Respondent failed to payment of the settlement funds overdue. 6 inform ThyssenKrupp that in the Bullock matte.r was ' ¢ ¢ 26. Respondent's ThyssenKrupp's funds were delay false statements in paying to Ms. and Respondent Mr. Vogin Bullock's knew his regarding settlement statements were false when Respondent made them. 27. On February 17, Mr. 2011, Vogin filed with the Court of Common Pleas a Motion to Deliver Settlement Funds. 28. Respondent failed to inform ThyssenKrupp that a motion to deliver settlement funds had been filed in the Bullock matter. 29. Respondent did not file a response to the motion. 30. On March 15, 2011, Judge Abramson: a. found that ThyssenKrupp had failed to make payment of $80,000 twenty days of to Ms. Bullock within the arbitrator's Report and Award; ordered that interest b. of ThyssenKrupp 4.25% on the pay simple $80,000 from December 21, 2010 to the date of delivery of the settlement funds; and c. ordered attorneys' that ThyssenKrupp fees pursuant Phila.Civ.R. 229.1. 7 to pay $500 in Pa.R.C.P. and 31. On March 16, 2011, Mr. Vogin for Entry of Judgment in favor of Ms. filed a Praecipe Bullock and against ThyssenKrupp in the amount of $81,292.20. 32. Respondent his November 30, failed to inform Ms. Schultz about 2010 settlement agreement in the Bullock matter until May 16, 2011. B. 33. assigned In to or around represent MURRAY MATTER November 2008, ThyssenKrupp in a Respondent personal was injury matter brought by Nancy and James Murray in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County; the case was captioned and docketed No. Corp., County) . 34. at Murray 02847, et al.. November v. ThyssenKrupp Term, 2008 EJ.evator (Philadelphia (Murray matter) On or before July 1, 2010, Respondent agreed with Richard C. Senker, counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Murray, to resolve the Murray matter by binding arbitration. 35. Prior to agreeing to submit the Murray matter to binding arbitration, Respondent failed to obtain permission from ThyssenKrupp and Ms. Schultz. 36. Judge By letter dated July 1, 2010, from Mr. Senker to Abramson, with a "cc" to Respondent, Mr. Senker advised Judge Abramson that the parties had agreed to refer 8 the Murray parties matter had chosen to binding Peter A. hi/low Dunn, arbitration Esquire, as and the the sole arbiter. 37. On order removing July 12, 2010, Judge the Murray matter from Abramson the entered trial list an and transferring it to binding arbitration. 38. court has Respondent failed to inform Ms. Schultz that the transferred the Murray matter to binding hi/low arbitration. a. Respondent falsely advised Ms. Respondent had agreed to Schultz that participate in a non-binding mediation. 3 9. 2010, Without ThyssenKrupp' s consent, Respondent participated in a the Murray matter, on December 2, binding arbitration in during which time the arbitrator heard testimony and accepted evidence introduced by the parties. 40. On December 29, 2010, the arbitrator entered a joint award in favor of Nancy and James Murray and against. ThyssenKrupp in the amount of $220,000. 41. Respondent After the binding arbitration award was entered, informed Ms. Schultz that it was settlement amount recommended by a mediator. 9 a non-binding I ' I " ' I a. Respondent's statement to Ms. Schultz was false and Respondent knew it was false when Respondent made it. 42. Respondent subsequently informed Schultz Ms. that Respondent had hired a doctor to review the Murrays' records and the doctor's report was unfavorable. a. Respondent's hired a statement doctor to that Respondent review the had Murrays' records was false and Respondent knew it was false when Respondent made it. 43. Respondent repeatedly pressed Ms. Schultz for settlement authority in the Murray matter. 44. the Respondent arbitrator's ThyssenKrupp make failed to Report and payment inform Award within ThyssenKrupp mandated that that days from Benker to Respondent, dated twenty ThyssenKrupp's receipt of the Report and Award. 45. January 4, requested By emails from Mr. 18, 24, 31, ThyssenKrupp's and February 10, prompt payment 2 011, of Mr. the Benker $220,000 arbitration award. 46. By emails from Respondent to Mr. Benker, January 18, February 2, 10, and 14, Respondent wrote: 10 dated ~ 'I ¢' 1 a. "I will light a fire under my client to get it processed (if it hasn't been already) so we can both close the file"; "I'm working the client hard for you. b. You were a gentleman throughout the case so I'm trying to get this ASAP"; c. "No excuse, understand truly your I'm told it will be soon and I aggravation. will have it hand delivered the instant it arrives"; and d. "Have several calls in, will advise check date immediately upon hearing." 47. Respondent had failed to inform ThyssenKrupp that payment of the arbitration award in the Murray matter was overdue. 48. Respondent's statements to Mr. ThyssenKrupp' s Benker regarding delay in paying the arbitration award were false and Respondent knew they were false when Respondent made them. 49. On February 16, 2011, Mr. Benker filed with the Court of Common Pleas a Motion to Deliver Settlement Funds. 50. motion. Respondent did not 11 file a response to the i I 51. On March 14, 2011, Judge Abramson: a. found that ThyssenKrupp had payment of $220,000 Murray within failed to make to Nancy and James twenty days of the arbitrator's Report and Award; b. ordered that interest of January 24, ThyssenKrupp 4.25% on the pay simple $220,000 from 2011 to the date of delivery of the settlement funds; and c. ordered that ThyssenKrupp fees attorneys' pursuant pay to $500 in Phila.Civ.R. 229 .1. 52. On March 16, 2011, Mr. Benker filed a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment in favor of Nancy and James Murray and against ThyssenKrupp in the amount of $221,806.43. 53. Respondent failed to inform ThyssenKrupp that a $221,806.43 judgment had been entered against it. 54. On May 3, 2011, the Murrays initiated execution proceedings against ThyssenKrupp' s bank account to satisfy its judgment. 55. Murrays' Ms. Schultz contacted Mr. execution on ThyssenKrupp' s 12 McBride about bank accounts, the after ' "' which time Mr. McBride asked Respondent about the execution proceedings against ThyssenKrupp. In 56. to response McBride's Mr. inquiry, Respondent: a. denied that the Murrays that Respondent had valid a judgment; b. denied had agreed to participate in a binding arbitration; and c. drafted a weak motion to vacate the Murray judgment. 57. Respondent's statements to Mr. McBride denying the existence of the binding arbitration and the validity of the judgment were false and Respondent knew they were false when Respondent made them. 58. Ms. During a Schultz on conference May 16, call 2011, with Mr. Respondent McBride and admitted to engaging in a pattern of deceptive and fraudulent behavior in his handling of the ThyssehKrupp matters. 59. As a result of Respondent's wrongdoing in the ThyssenKrupp matters the law Firm entered into a Settlement Agreement with ThyssenKrupp wherein the Firm would make total payments of $250,000 to settle the disputes arising from Respondent's mishandling matters. 13 of the Bullock and Murray I '' '< IJ C. 60. The Firm FALSE BILLINGS assigned Respondent to handle the following matters for ThyssenKrupp: a. Altavese; b. Boyle; c. Castaldo; d. County of Lehigh; e. Devlin; f. Dillon; g. Ferro; h. Howard; i. Limeberry; j . Matzel; k. Moore; l. Stiffler; m. Robinson; n. Rodriguez; o. Roseman; and p. Ulmer. 61. the above During 16 the course of matters, Respondent's Respondent submitted handling of false time sheets to the Firm, in that Respondent's time sheets stated that Respondent: 14 drafted a. motions, praecipes, letters, in responses, summonses, replies, emails, releases, and summaries of depositions, fact, Respondent did not draft when these documents; b. appeared in court, when in fact, Respondent did not have any scheduled court appearance; c. attended depositions, when fact, in Respondent did not attend the depositions; d. had telephone calls with witnesses, fact, when in Respondent did not have the telephone calls; e. performed research, when in fact, Respondent did not perform the research; f. prepared witnesses for depositions, fact, Respondent did not when in prepare the witnesses; and g. incurred travel expenses, when in fact, Respondent did not travel. 62. submitted, Based on the false time sheets Respondent the Firm printed draft bills and gave them to Mr. McBride for review. 15 . ' .. ' 63. After the draft bills were reviewed, the Firm's Accounting Department printed the bills in final form and sent the bills to ThyssenKrupp. 64. from the Based on Firm for the bills Respondent's ThyssenKrupp's legal matters, for legal had performed; that work Respondent ThyssenKrupp purported overpaid matters: a. Altavese, $2,480; b. Boyle, $7,241; c. Castaldo, $3,156.50; d. County of Lehigh, $3,627; e. Devlin, $7,254; f. Dillon, $1,054; g. Ferro, $387.50; h. Howard, $10,152.50; i. Limeberry, $1,116; j. Matzel, $945.00; k. Moore, $2,906.15; 1. Stiffler, $12,896; m. Robinson, $790.50; n. Rodriguez; $1,023; o. Roseman, $8,943.50; and 16 handling of ThyssenKrupp paid $80,715.20 misrepresented ThyssenKrupp received in that Respondent the following ' ' ' p. 65. Ulmer, $7,207,50. In the course of representing ThyssenKrupp, Respondent knowingly made false statements of material fact to third parties, Respondent 66. engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, 67. As handling a result of matters, ThyssenKrupp's undertaken the Respondent's expense of an misconduct the law audit of ThyssenKrupp billing records and, thus far, Firm in has Respondent's is obligated to reimburse ThyssenKrupp a total of $330,719.20. 68. By his through 67 above, conduct as alleged in paragraphs 11 Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 1.2(a), which paragraphs (c) by a and (d), client 1 s objectives states subject to a lawyer shall abide decisions of that concerning representation and, the as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. on behalf A lawyer may take such action of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client 1 s decision 17 ,, ,_,,. -' ::,:., ··, f ¢ ¢ _:· ··-:. . '·. ·:· . \. '','; wheth~r. to settle a matter. In .:1" c:i;":tminal: ¢ f, ' ,C~Se 1 ~J;le. l~wyer ·.·.. Shall ¢ ··:· abide by. the Client ' ¢' '· '·'· g.ed'isl..on, l~~Ye~., , \,;,:bt;h C.Of1SU1 tat ion ·after IS, l.-' <t.s to a pleil. to be entered;;., whether,' ;o,,.,. to waive jury trial. ar!d · whetP,er the client will testify; b, · Rl?C 1. 3, which states that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in rep:t:'esendng a client/ c. Rl?C 1.4 (a) (1), shall which promptly decision which or the states inform the circumstance client's that a lawyer client with informed of any respect to consent, as defined in Rule 1. o (e), is required by these Rules; d. Rl?C 1.4 (a) (3), shall keep which ' the states client that a reasonably lawyer informed about the status of the.matter; e. Rl?C 1.4(b), which states that a lawyer shall explain a necessary informed matter to to permit decisions representation; 18 the the extent reasonably client regarding to make the f. RPC 3. 3 (a) (1), which states that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; g. RPC 4.1 (a) , which states that in the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; h. RPC 8.4(c), professional engage in which states misconduct conduct that for a involving it is lawyer to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and i. RPC 8.4(d), professional which states misconduct for that a it lawyer is to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. CHARGE III: A. 69. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY THE COLBURN MATTER On or about March 2009, to represent Otis Elevator Company Respondent was assigned (Otis) , in the matter captioned and docketed at Colburn, Kaux£man, and Camacho v. 19 ' ¢ No. 4725, March Term, Otis Elevator Co., 2009 (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) . (the Colburn matter) 70. Colburn On or about May 21, 2010, Respondent settled the matter for $21,500 for Colburn, $21,500 for Kauffman, and $21,500 for Camacho. 71. or Respondent failed to obtain authority from Otis Patrick Corcoran, Esquire, Legal Department, Otis Elevator Company, to settle the Colburn matter. 72. had Respondent failed to inform Otis that Respondent settled the Colburn matter for $21,500 for each plaintiff. By 73. forwarded Colburn, to Ms. W-9 forms, letter John C. Kauffman, dated June 4, 2010, Respondent Capek, Esquire, attorney for Ms. and Ms. Camacho, executed Releases, and an Order to Settle, Discontinue and End that Respondent had signed without Otis's authority. 74. contacted From time Respondent to by time thereafter, telephone, letters, Mr. and Capek email urging Respondent to forward the settlement monies. 75. Respondent did not respond to Mr. Capek's communications. 76. Respondent failed to advise Otis that Mr. Capek was requesting payment of settlement monies in the Colburn matter. 20 ' '' 77. On July 23, 2010, Mr. Capek filed a Motion to Deliver Settlement Funds in the Colburn matter. 78. Respondent did not contest Mr. Capek's motion. 79. By Order dated September 7, 2010, the Honorable Sandra Mazer Moss: a. found that Otis had failed to make payment of $21,500 within twenty days of receipt of the executed release; b. ordered 3.25% that on Otis each pay simple settlement of interest $21,500 of from June 24, 2010 to the date of delivery of the settlement funds; and c. ordered that Otis pay $500 in attorney's fees pursuant to Phila.Civ.R. 229.1. 80. Respondent failed to advise Otis of Judge Moss's September 7, 2010 Order. 81. On November 22, 2010, Mr. Capek filed a Motion for Sanctions and Contempt: a. stating that on September 7, 2010, the Court entered an order requiring Otis to pay each plaintiff $21,500 June 24, 2010; 21 plus 3.25% interest from . ¢ ,. b. alleging that Respondent acknowledge plaintiff's had refused telephone to calls and letters requesting the settlement funds; c. requesting that further sanctions be issued against Otis; and d. requesting that each $21,500 settlement be reduced to judgment. 82. Respondent received a failed copy to of the Motion for Otis about the Contempt for non- Sanctions and Contempt. 83. Respondent plaintiffs' Motion for advise Sanctions and payment of funds in the Colburn matter. 84. On December 13, 2010, Respondent filed with the Court of Common Pleas a Response to plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions; Respondent wrote: a. "answering defendant encountered unforeseen financial difficulties that made paying any such settlements impossible"; b. "moving defendant extricate has themselves worked tirelessly to from financial problems" and has not availed itself of the "bankruptcy protections contained in 11 USC §362"; 22 .... ' "' c. " [h] ad moving defendant been forced to enter bankruptcy [sic] plaintiff's settlement would have been held until such times that the bankruptcy would have been resolved"; and d. "[b] y the defendant issue end of expects settlement the to fiscal be year solvent drafts in a moving enough to number of Otis be matters including this one." 85. Respondent's motion requested that granted sixty days to issue settlement checks. In 86. financial fact, Otis difficulties was that not suffering prevented Otis from from any promptly paying plaintiffs' settlement. 87. Respondent filed a patently false pleading with the Court. 88. Prior to December 21, 2010, Respondent advised Mr. Corcoran that Respondent had settled the Colburn matter for $23,000. 89. in that $21,500 Respondent's statement to Mr. Corcoran was false Respondent and Respondent had sanctions had failed settled of $1,500 to make settlement. 23 the Colburn matter for were imposed because prompt payment of the . ' ' 90. received On or about settlement December checks of 21, $23,000 2010, Respondent per plaintiff from Otis and distributed the settlement funds to plaintiffs. 91. As a result of Respondent's deceitful conduct, on January 7, 2011, Judge Moss: a. denied plaintiffs' motion for sanctions; b. ordered Otis to pay the settlement funds within 60 days; and c. stated that plaintiffs may request that the Court impose sanctions at a later time. B. 92. FALSE BILLINGS The law Firm assigned Respondent to handle the following hourly rate cases for Otis: a. Hampton Inn; b. Schoedel; c. Mumper; d. Bloch; e. Dorsett; f. Manzi; g. Deckman; h. Tatko; i. Albanese; j . Mitchell; k. Nativity BMW; and 24 ¢ ¢ ' 1. 93. Jones. The law Firm assigned Respondent to handle the following flat rate cases for Otis: a. b. Jordan; c. Nash; d. Darden; e. Nestorick; f. Leiter; g. Colburn; and h. 94. Meadows; Kephart. During the course of Respondent's handling of the matters in ,, 92-93, supra, Respondent submitted false time Firm, in sheets to the law that Respondent's time sheets stated that Respondent: a. attended a settlement mediation session, conference, and correspondence regarding a on a case after the had a drafted settlement offer case had already settled; b. drafted protective orders, replies, fact, letters, Respondent documents; 25 and answers, motions, summaries, failed to when draft in these ''' c. prepared for depositions, for depositions, when in fact, and the prepared witnesses attended depositions, depositions were never scheduled; d. attended conferences, arguments, and court site hearings, inspections, oral when in fact, Respondent did not attend; e. had telephone conferences with Otis, witnesses, fact, and opposing Respondent counsel, expert when never had these in telephone calls; and f. incurred travel and litigation expenses that Respondent did not incur. 95. submitted, Based on the false time sheets Respondent the law Firm printed draft bills and gave them to Mr. McBride for review. 96. After the draft bills were reviewed, the Firm's Accounting Department printed the bills in final form and sent the bills to Otis. 97. As a received from handling of result the Otis's law legal of ·inaccurate Firm for matters, Respondent's Otis $30,419.24, as follows: a. $29,159 in hourly fees; 26 bills that Otis purported erroneously paid I ' I' b. c. 98. $801 in hourly expense reimbursement; and $459.24 in flat fee expense reimbursement. On October 12, 2011, the law Firm reimbursed Otis $34,919.24 for the overpayments Otis made as a result of Respondent's false statements in the Colburn matter and false time sheets. 99. By his through 98 above, conduct as alleged in Respondent violated the paragraphs 69 following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 1.2(a), which states that subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) , a lawyer shall abide by a client's objectives decisions concerning representation of and, the as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. on behalf A lawyer may take such action of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, lawyer, after consultation with as to a plea to be entered, 27 the whether ' ¢ to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify; b. RPC 1.3, which states that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; c. RPC 1. 4 (a) ( 1) , shall which promptly decision which or the states that the client inform circumstance client's with informed a lawyer of any respect to consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules; d. RPC 1. 4 (a) ( 3) , shall keep which the states client that a reasonably lawyer informed about the status of the matter; e. RPC 1.4(b), which states that a lawyer shall explain a necessary informed matter to to permit decisions the the extent reasonably client to regarding make the representation; f. RPC 3.3 (a) (1), which states that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or 28 ' " ' (- f ~ l· l ¢ ¢ ,. law previously made t:o. the tribunal by the lawyer,; 4~1(a), RPC g. which states a of representing th~t client a in the course lawyer shall. not knowingly make a false statement of material. fact or law to a third person; h. RPC which B.4(c), professional misconduct ' engage states in for is lawyer a involving conduct it to that dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and· 8.4(d), RPC i. which professional states misconduct for it is lawyer to that a engage in conduct that is prejudicial· to the administration of justice; CHARGE IV: DB-7 ANSWER 100. certified On November 21, mail, with a 2011, ODC served Respondent, DB-7 Request for Statement via of Respondent's Position. 101. email, a On November 22, copy of ODC's 2011, DB-7 ODC sent Respondent, Request for Statement via of Respondent's Position. 102. DB-7 Respondent Request and the failed to Post Office December 12, 2011. 29 claim the returned certified mail it to ODC on ¢. l ,, ' l ' ' '\" ¢ 103. Request On December 12, to Respondent Cherry Hill, NJ 104. 2011, at his ODC hand-delivered a DB-7 residence, 417 Bruce Road, 08034. Respondent's agent accepted delivery of the DB-7 Request. 105. 7 Respondent failed to submit an answer to the DB- Request within 30 days, as mandated by Pa.R.D.E. 203 (b) (7} . 106. By through 105 his conduct above, as alleged in paragraphs Respondent violated the 100 following Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement: a. Pa.R.D.E. failure good by a cause Counsel's under 203 (b) (7} , which states respondent-attorney to respond request or Disciplinary to without Disciplinary supplemental Board that Rules, § request 87.7(b} for a statement of the respondent-attorney's position, shall be grounds for discipline. WHEREFORE, appoint, Petitioner prays that your Honorable Board pursuant to Rule 205, Pa.R.D.E., a Hearing Committee to hear testimony and receive evidence in support of the foregoing charges and upon hearing to make such findings of fact, 30 completion of said conclusions of law, (~ ~ ,,' ,, . II'' I I ' and recommendations for disciplinary action as it may deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Paul J. Killion Chief Disciplinary Counsel HJrrlat R. Brumberg Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Registration No. 31032 Seven Penn Center, 16th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 560-6296 31 ~"!'' ( "l ll 1 ' \. 1 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. DB 2012 v. Atty. Reg. No. 205185 BENNETT ELLIOT LANGMAN, Respondent (Formerly Philadelphia) VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Petition for Discipline are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information penalties of and 18 belief Pa.C.S. falsification to authorities. (5/ /e.g fd.OI :l.... Date and are §490.4, made subject relating to to the unsworn

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.