No. 1935, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1935 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 157 DB 2012 v. Attorney Registration No. 48970 DENNIS P. DENARD, Respondent (Montgomery County) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 191h day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated April 3, 2013, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby granted pursuant to Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E., and it is ORDERED that Dennis P. Denard is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of eighteen months and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. A True COPY. Patricia Nicola As Of 6/19/L013 Attest: ~}VAJv Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. No. 157 DB 2012 Attorney Registration No. 48970 DENNIS P. DENARD Respondent (Montgomery 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, David A. Nasatir, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter on January 22, 2013. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a 18 month suspension 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: 4\3\\3__ Stephan K. Todd, Panel Chair The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania _' 1 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 157 DB 2012 v. Attorney Reg. No. 48970 DENNIS P. DENARD, Respondent (Montgomery County) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) Petitioner, Killion, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel by Paul J. Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Disciplinary Counsel, and (hereinafter "Respondent"), and Barbara Brigham Denys, Respondent, file Dennis Denard P. this Joint Petition In Support of Discipline on Consent under Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement ("Pa.R.D.E.") 215(d), and respectfully represent: 1. Petitioner, Pennsylvania 27 00' P.O. invested, Box Center, 62485, all matters admitted to Pennsylvania brought Judicial principal 601 in and to accordance office is Commonwealth Harrisburg, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. investigate attorney whose situated Avenue, Pennsylvania Suite 17106, is 207, with the power and duty to involving alleged misconduct practice law in prosecute all disciplinary with at the various the of Commonwealth any of proceedings provisions of the aforesaid Enforcement Rules. Fll ED JAN 2 2 2013 Office of the Sec rotary The Disciplinary Board of t:1o Supreme Court of Por.:::y!r...nia 2. 1952, Respondent, was admitted Dennis P. to Denard, practice was born on October 7, law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on May 20, 1987, is currently on active status, and maintains his address of record 1076 at Bethlehem Pike, Montgomeryville, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 18936. 3. Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED A. Unauthorized Practice of Law 4. On entered an suspension, April 2011, 4, Order effective the placing 30 Pennsylvania Respondent days after the Supreme on Court administrative date of the Order, pursuant to Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. 5. The April 4, 2011 Order was issued due to Respondent's failure to become compliant with his Continuing Legal Education ("CLE") requirements due August 31, 2010; Respondent was three substantive credits shy of meeting his requirements due to his failure to make payment to the Pennsylvania Bar Institute for three on-line courses he took on August 31, 2010. 6. Respondent correct the had been given deficiency by notices sent to Respondent on October 22, 2 several opportunities and assessment 2010, of late and February 3, to fees 2011, He failed, which Respondent received. however, to do so within the required time period. 7. Price, On April caused 4, the Attorney Registrar, Suzanne E. be to 2011, sent to registered Respondent, to his preferred mailing address, a letter notifying Respondent that he would be "Administratively Suspended effective May 4, failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules for 2011, for Continuing Legal Education due August 31, 2010 (Compliance Group 2) ." 8. A copy along with Rule Disciplinary the Court's Pa.R.D.E. Rules, Forms Litigation and and Supreme 217 of the Board (Nonli tigation Suspension), of Form DB-25 (a) April 4, 2011 Order, and §§91.91-91.99 of the DB-23(a) Notice and DB-24(a) Administrative of (Statement of Compliance), were enclosed with the April 4, 2011 letter. 9. The April 2 011 4, letter, with its enclosures, was sent to Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested. 10. On April 7, 2011, Respondent received the April 4, 2011 letter. 11. As of April 7, 2011, Respondent was aware that he was administratively suspended effective May 4, 2011. 12. 4, Respondent failed to stop practicing law effective May 2011. 3 13. Respondent continued hold to himself out as a practicing attorney after May 4, 2011. 14. Respondent certified mail, failed return to receipt notify, registered by requested, all clients or being represented in pending litigation or administrative proceedings, and the attorney matter or or attorneys proceeding, of for his each adverse transfer party in such administrative to suspension and consequent inability to act as an attorney after May 4, 2011. 15. Respondent failed certified mail, return their agents guardians owed a or fiduciary administrative to receipt duty notify, requested, by to whom Respondent at suspension, any of time his or owed or may have after transfer or other persons all registered his to transfer to administrative suspension. 16 Respondent 0 certified mail, failed to notify, return receipt requested, by registered or all other persons who might have inferred that Respondent remained an attorney in good standing, 17. within of his transfer to administrative suspension. Respondent failed to file with the Disciplinary Board, ten suspension, ( 10) days of his transfer to administrative a verified statement showing his compliance with the April 4, 2011 Order and the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. 4 18. within Respondent failed to file with the Disciplinary Board, ten suspension, ( 10) a days verified of his statement transfer showing to all administrative other state, federal and administrative jurisdictions to which Respondent had been admitted to address other practice where and setting communications forth to the residence Respondent or could thereafter be directed. 19. Following Respondent's administrative suspension: a. he performed law-related services from an office that was not staffed by a supervising attorney on a full time basis; b. he accepted new retainers and/ or engagements an attorney for another in new cases; c. he continued to have direct communication with at as least some of his clients regarding matters which were not limited to ministerial matters; d. he performed law-related services for clients who in the past he had represented; e. he rendered legal consultation or advice to clients; f. g. 20. he appeared on behalf of a client in at least one hearing and/or proceeding before an adjudicative person or body; and he received, client funds. In connection with disbursed the and/or otherwise following matters, handled Respondent entered his appearance as an attorney on behalf of clients after he was placed on administrative suspension, actively represented 5 those clients, and received funds from those clients knowing that he was prohibited from doing so: a. b. Joan Twigg v. William Denton Twigg II, Court of Common Pleas, Bucks Pennsylvania, Case Number 2010-61944; c. Mbarka Dchira v. Clifton Phillips, in the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Case Number 2011-61478; and d. 21. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lindsay Ann Casas, a criminal proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Docket Number CP-09-CR-0002466-2011; Brittany L. McGreevy v. Ryan McGreevy, Court of Common Pleas, Bucks Pennsylvania, Case Number 2011-22490. In connection Respondent's administrative with appeurance the had following been Respondent suspension, matters, in the County, in the County, in which entered before his did withdraw not counsel for his clients and instead continued to engage, least some period of time, as for at in the unauthorized practice of law and law-related services while administratively suspended: a. b. 22. Central Bucks Athletic Association, Inc. v. Plumstead Township, in the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Case number 2010-01653; and Exterior Associates, Inc. v. William Messick, et al., in the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Case Number 2009-07621. In Central Plumstead Township, Bucks Athletic Association, Inc. v. on May 24, 2011, after the effective date of Respondent's administrative suspension, Respondent filed a brief 6 on behalf of the plaintiff. Respondent continued to represent the plaintiff for the duration of the proceedings. 23. after In the the suspension, Exterior Associates matter, effective date of on May Respondent's 19, 2011, administrative Respondent filed a Motion for Hearing on behalf of Defendant/Petitioner Michael Messick. 24. On May 20, On June 2011, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Petition of Hearing. 25. Defendant, 15, Michael 2011, Messick Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3. 26. On June Respondent to Open and a Strike-Off Judgment The plaintiff opposed. 2011, 16, filed Respondent went to Court in anticipation of a hearing which had been scheduled to take place before Judge Albert J. Cepparulo in the Exterior Associates matter. 27. At that time, Judge Cepparulo and Respondent discussed and Respondent acknowledged that Respondent was not permitted to appear before the Court as a result of his administrative suspension. 28. Judge Cepparulo rescheduled the hearing to 29. Respondent was not reinstated as of July 8, July 8, 2011. 2011, and his clients in the Exterior Associates matter proceeded pro se. 7 With the exception of the Exterior Associates matter, 30. following Respondent's Cepparulo and suspended, he June 16, 2011 Respondent while continued to appearance remained communicate before Judge administratively with and perform law- related services for existing and new clients. 31. Suzanne On August Price, 12, 2011, Attorney the CLE Registrar, Board sent certifying a letter to that Respondent had completed his CLE requirements. 32. On Respondent from the August 15, confirming CLE 2011, Ms. receipt of Price sent a certification Board and explaining to letter of to compliance Respondent the procedure for reinstatement. 33. Ms. Respondent Price's was letter required explained to pay that his to be current reinstated, license and reinstatement fees in the total amount of $500.00 and "to comply with Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. by completing and filing Form DB-25(a), Statement of Compliance." 34. On investigator October for 2011, 10, Petitioner handed Petitioner's September 7, Respondent's Position ("DB-7 submitted Attorney Registration (Form to DB-25(A)), pursuant several 2011 DB-7 Letter"), to Rule 8 before Respondent Request a days a for 217(e), copy of Statement of signed and Respondent Statement an of which Compliance certified "[t]hat [he] [April 4, ha[d] 2011] fully complied with the provisions of the Order of the Supreme Court, with the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and with the applicable Disciplinary Board Rules.u 35. On October 17, 2011, Attorney Registration reinstated Respondent to active status. 36. Respondent's October 10, was not submitted within ten (10) 2011 Statement of Compliance days after the effective date of his administrative suspension. 37. Respondent's October 10, certified compliance with the 2011 Statement of Compliance requirements of Pa.R.D.E. 217 when, in fact, Respondent had not complied with Pa.R.D.E. 217. 38. received On October 17, the DB-7 Letter, 2011, four (4) Respondent days signed after and Respondent submitted to Attorney Registration a "CORRECTEDu Statement of Compliance. 39. Respondent Compliance, added the word "NOTu to the noting in his cover letter as follows: not complied fully with Rule 217(e), Statement of "As I have I ask that my reinstatement be held in abeyance until full compliance.u 40. Respondent Attorney Registration, however, to active status upon its October 10, 2011 Statement of Compliance. 9 had already reinstated receipt of Respondent's 41. Respondent remained listed as counsel of record in at least the following additional matters in the in various state courts Commonwealth of Pennsylvania while under administrative suspension: a. John Mort om v. Spinieo, Inc., Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, No. 201101007; b. Jodi Hertzberg v. Barry Hertzberg, Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-61499; c. Tulia Landscaping, Inc. v. Victory Gardens, Inc., et al., Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-04553; d. Chris Cozzi, et al. v. Blue Haven Northeast, Inc., Court of Common Pleas, County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-01369; e. Petro Heating & Air Conditioning SE v. Victory Court of Common Pleas, Gardens, Inc., Bucks County, Pennsylvania, No. 2008-06454; f. Mark Dean v. Spinieo, Inc., Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, No.2009-09488; g. Spinieo, Inc. v. Common Pleas, No.2009-09291; h. Vi to Bracci a Concrete & Building Contractors, Inc. v. Spinieo, Inc., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, No. 2010-29763; i. Platinum Pools, Inc. v. Steven Bouchard, Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, No. 2010-00116; j. Gunite Specialist, Inc. v. Platinum Pools, Inc., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-31845; Pools Bucks David Zanolli, et al. , Court of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 10 k. l. Spinieo, Inc. v. James M. Pizzo, Jr., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-10286; m. Spinieo Electric v. Pheonix Electrical Contractors, Inc., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-03532; and n. 42. Orrino Building Group, LLC v. Montgomery Office Park, LLC, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-25842; Platinum Pools, Inc. v. Richard Alessandrini, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, No. 2010-33161. Respondent does not appear to have actively engaged in the provision of legal services in connection with the matters identified in paragraph 41 during his administrative suspension. B. Misconduct In Connection With Disciplinary Matter 43. In contradiction with Respondent's representation to Petitioner that he was withdrawing his appearance in the matters identified in paragraph 41, Respondent did not do so and did not inform Petitioner of his served Respondent with failure its June to 19, do so 2012 until DB-7A Request for Statement of Respondent's Position Petitioner Supplemental ("DB-7A Letter") asserting violation of Rule 8.1. 44. In his November 28, 2011 Statement response to paragraph 19 of the DB-7 Letter, of Position, Respondent stated that "[w]ithdraw [sic] of appearances w[ould] be filed." 11 in 45. By letters to Respondent dated November 30, December 21, Petitioner 2011' sought 2011, and of such confirmation filings. 46. By Respondent submission to Petitioner referenced that he Appearance" forms in dated had attached connection with January 11, nwithdrawl nine ( 9) of 2012, [sic] of the matters enclose with his January referenced in the DB-7 Letter. 4 7. 11, 2012 Respondent did not, however, submission the documentation he referred to as having been attached. 48. On January in part, to 13, seek the 2012, Petitioner wrote documents referred to to in his Respondent, January 11, 2012 submission as having been attached. 49. eight (8) 50. On February 3, 2012, Respondent provided to Petitioner nwithdraw [sic] of Appearance" forms. None of nwithdraw the [sic] of Appearance" Respondent provided to Petitioner on February 3, 2012, forms had been filed as of February 3, 2012. 51. On June 19, 2012, Petitioner served Respondent with the DB-7A Letter. 52. first In response to the DB-7A time affirmatively stated to Letter, Petitioner that had attempted to file the withdrawal forms, 12 Respondent for the although he he was informed that new counsel would have to simultaneously enter appearances, or that he would have to file petitions for leave to withdraw. 53. On August 8, 2012, Respondent filed petitions to withdraw as counsel in the following matters: b. Haven Pools of Common Pleas, County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-01369; a. Bucks Chris Cozzi, et al. Northeast, Inc., Court v. Blue Tulia Landscaping, Inc. v. Victory Gardens, Inc. r et al., Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-04553; c. Petro Heating Gardens, Inc., & Air Conditioning SE v. Court of Common Pleas, County, Pennsylvania, No. 2008-06454; d. Bucks Orrino Building Group, LLC v. Montgomery Office Park, LLC, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, and e. Victory Pennsylvania, No. 2009-25842; Gunite Specialist, Inc. v. Platinum Pools, Inc., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, No. 2009-31845. C. Misconduct In Exterior Associates Matter 54. On August 15, 2009, Respondent entered his appearance in the Exterior Associates matter on behalf of the defendants, William Messick, the Messick Group, Michael Messick, and W.L.M. Management, Inc. 55. On October 5, 2009, the plaintiff filed a petition to compel discovery. 13 56. On directing October the 16, 2009, production the of Court records entered an order documents; and the defendants were required to provide full and complete responses to the plaintiff's first set of requests for production of documents within thirty days of the date of the order or file a motion for hearing within ten days. 57. The defendants failed to comply with the October 16, 2009 Order. 58. On November 18, 2009, the plaintiff filed a petition for contempt, and a hearing was scheduled for December 16, 2009. 59. On December 14, 2009, the plaintiff filed motions to compel the depositions of William Messick and Michael Messick. 60. On petition for December 16, 200 9, Respondent replied to the contempt on behalf of the defendants and appeared at a hearing on the petition for contempt. 61. petition At for the hearing, contempt, the Court finding that granted the the plaintiff's defendants were in willful contempt of the October 16, 2009 Order, and required the defendants to provide discovery. 62. In addition, the Court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees regarding the contempt matter in the amount of $500.00. 14 63. The defendants failed to comply with the December 16, 2009 Order. 64. On January 12, 2010, the plaintiff filed a petition for contempt, and a hearing was set for March 9, 2010. 65. On January 27, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the depositions of William Messick and Michael Messick. 66. to On March 2, compel the 2010, depositions the plaintiff filed another motion of William Messick and Michael Messick. 67. March Neither 9, 2010 Respondent hearing nor his clients for the second petition for the the on the plaintiff's appeared contempt. 68. By Order dated March 17, 2010, Court found defendants in contempt of its October 16, 2009 and December 16, 2009 Orders, directed the defendants to comply with outstanding discovery requests within seven (7) days, ordered the defendants to pay additional attorney's fees of $1,000.00, and stated that upon a petition proving noncompliance with the March 17, Order, the Court would grant a default judgment 2010 for the March 17, plaintiff and against the defendants. 69. The defendants failed 2010 Order. 15 to comply with the 70. On compelling March the 22, the 2010, depositions of Court William entered Messick an and Order Michael Messick. 71. Coval, Thereafter, Esquire, the plaintiff's counsel, Christopher P. noticed the depositions to take place on April 21, 2010. 72. Michael Respondent Messick, and failed his to William clients, appear for the Messick depositions and in violation of the Court's March 22, 2010 Order. 73. On April 7, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of a default judgment against the defendants because the defendants were in violation of the March 17, 2010 Order. The Court fixed a May 14, 2010 hearing date. 74. May 14, Respondent and the defendants failed to appear at the 2010 hearing, and the Court found the defendants to be in willful contempt of its October 16, 2009, December 16, 2009, and March 17, 2010 Orders. 75. The defendants had failed to produce any documents responsive to outstanding discovery requests and had failed to pay any of the attorney's fees. 7 6. The Court directed the Prothonotary to enter judgment by default against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff. 16 77. On May 19, 2010, judgment by default was entered against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $48,427.21, plus costs and interest. 78. No appeal was filed or attempted by Respondent on behalf of the defendants or by any of the defendants represented by other counsel or acting pro se. 79. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought to execute on the judgment. 80. On May 2, emergency Order was 2011, at Respondent's request, entered postponing until an ex parte further order of the Court a sheriff's sale of personal property which had been scheduled for May 2, 2011. 81. At the ex parte hearing on the emergency petition, Respondent failed to inform Judge Cepparulo that Respondent had not served opposing counsel, Christopher Coval, Esquire, copy of the Emergency Petition or otherwise notified Mr. of Respondent's intended appearance in Court on May 2, that Mr. with a Coval 2011, or Coval would no doubt oppose the entry of the proposed emergency Order if given the opportunity. 82. Mr. Coval had received no notice of Respondent's emergency petition and proposed Order and was therefore not in Court when Respondent presented the proposed emergency Order to Judge Cepparulo. 17 83. As a result, Judge Cepparulo entered the ex parte emergency Order. 84. On May 3, 2011, Mr. Coval objected to the May 2, 2011 Order on the ground that he was not in agreement with it and had had no notice or opportunity to oppose the entry of the Order. 85. On May 9, 2011, the Court vacated after the the May 2, 2011 Order. 86. On Respondent's motion for May 19, 2011, administrative hearing on behalf of date of Respondent suspension, effective filed a Defendant/Petitioner Michael Messick. 87. On May On 20, June 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for Petition of hearing. 88. Defendant, Michael 15, 2011, Messick Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3. 89 . On June 16, Respondent to Open filed and the Strike-Off Judgment The plaintiff opposed. 2011, Respondent came to Court in anticipation of a hearing Judge Cepparulo had scheduled. 90. suspension Judge Cepparulo addressed Respondent's on the record and rescheduled place on July 8, 2011. 18 the administrative hearing to take 91. July On Respondent, 2011, 8' administratively suspended, who remained was in attendance in the courtroom, but his clients appeared pro se. 92. stating, Judge Cepparulo in part, began the that the May 2, July 8, 2011 hearing by 2011 Order was entered based upon his belief at the time that the ex parte emergency Order Respondent had presented to him was unopposed. 93. When Respondent presented the ex parte emergency Order to Judge Cepparulo, Respondent failed to inform Judge Cepparulo that Mr. Coval had had no notice of the ex parte proceeding and would no doubt object to the entry of the proposed Order. 94. Judge Cepparulo also explored at the July 8, 2011 hearing the improper nature of the Petition to Open and StrikeOff Judgment. 95. year The before sanction judgment in the matter had been entered almost a the July against the 8, 2011 hearing defendants for as a final litigation their willful contempt of three court orders in the case. 96. Off Respondent averred in the Petition to Open and Strike- Judgment asserting that that defendants Michael had Messick original process in the matter. 19 filed was not preliminary properly objections served with 97. The preliminary objections to the original complaint, prepared and filed by Respondent, did not include an objection as to service of process, and Respondent never filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint, which had superseded the original complaint. 98. Respondent stated in the memorandum in support of the Petition to Open and Strike-Off Judgment that the defendant had filed an appeal from the judgment of the Magisterial District Court. 99. The $48,427.21, Court of Common Pleas plus interest and costs. in Magisterial District Court and, had entered judgment for There had been no action therefore, no appeal from the Magisterial District Court. 100. At the July 8, 2011 hearing, Judge Cepparulo concluded that Respondent's actions in the litigation were as an aside, noted that administrative suspension Respondent ~sometime should have ~abusiven resolved and, his ago.n 101. Judge Cepparulo denied the Petition to Stay Sheriff's Sale and to Open and Strike-Off Judgment. He also ordered Respondent to pay the sum of $1,000.00 as a counsel fee sanction to Mr. Coval. 102. On or about August 4, sanction. 20 2011, Respondent paid the SPECIFIC RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT VIOLATED Respondent violated the following Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and Rules of Professional Conduct: A. RPC 1.16 (a) (1), which states "a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, withdraw from the representation if the shall representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law." B. proceeding, RPC a which 3. 3 (d), states "[i]n an ex parte lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse." C. RPC which 3.4(a), states "[a] lawyer shall unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence D. which states "[a] RPC 5.5(b), not " lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not: (1) Pa.B.A.R. 302 or Except other as law, authorized establish an by these office or Rules, other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or (2) represent Hold out to the public or otherwise that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction." 21 E. RPC a with which states "a lawyer in connection B .1 (b), disciplinary matter, shall fail not to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6." F. misconduct RPC for a which 8.4(d), lawyer states to "[i]t engage is in professional conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. G. admitted Pa.R.D.E. attorney notified, by requested, shall promptly registered all clients or who administrative proceedings, each party adverse disbarment, inactive in which 217 (b)' notify, certified are and such states the in or mail, or formerly cause return pending attorney matter "[a] to be receipt litigation or attorneys for or proceeding, of the suspension, administrative suspension or transfer to status. The notice to be given to the client shall advise the prompt substitution of another attorney or attorneys in place of the formerly admitted attorney. client does not obtain substitute counsel before the effective date of the disbarment, In the event the suspension, administrative suspension or transfer to [inactive] status, it shall be the responsibility of 22 the formerly admitted attorney to move in the court or agency in which the proceeding is pending for leave to withdraw. The notice to be given to the attorney or attorneys for an adverse party shall state the place of residence of the client of the formerly admitted attorney." Pa.R.D.E. H. admitted attorney notified, of suspension or which 217(c), shall promptly notify, disbarment, the transfer to states or cause suspension, inactive status, formerly "[a] to be administrative by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested: (1) a all persons or their agents or guardians to whom fiduciary is disbarment, or may be owed at any time the suspension administrative suspension, after or transfer to inactive status, and (2) all other persons with whom the formerly admitted attorney may contacts at under any time circumstances expect to where have there professional is a reasonable probability that they may infer that he or she continues as an attorney in good standing. The responsibility of the formerly admitted attorney to provide the notice required by this subdivision shall continue for as long as the formerly admitted attorney is disbarred, suspended, administratively suspended or on inactive status. 23 I. Pa.R.D.E. which states "[o]rders imposing 217(d), suspension, disbarment, administrative suspension or transfer to inactive status formerly admitted suspension, status shall be effective attorney, shall not attorney for another nature. However, after entry suspension administrative order, days 30 or accept any new in any new case after entry. of the transfer disbarment, to retainer or or The inactive engage legal matter of as any during the period from the entry date of the order and its effective date the formerly admitted attorney may wind up and complete, on behalf of any client, all matters which were pending on the entry date." J. after Pa.R.D.E. effective the 217(e), date which states "[w]ithin ten days of the disbarment, suspension, administrative suspension or transfer to inactive status order, the formerly admitted attorney shall file with the Board a verified statement showing: (1) that the provisions of the order and these rules have been fully complied with; and (2) all other state, federal and administrative jurisdictions to which such person is admitted to practice. Such statement shall also set forth the residence or other address of the formerly admitted attorney where communications to such person may thereafter be directed." 24 K. Pa.R.D.E. limiting the other formerly admitted which 217 (j) (4)' restrictions attorney is in this states "[w]ithout subdivision specifically (j), prohibited a from engaging in any of the following activities: (i) law firm, performing any law-related a on or after the date on which organization or the acts resulted in the disbarment or suspension occurred, and for organization or lawyer if the formerly admitted attorney was associated with that law firm, lawyer activity including the effective date of which through disbarment or suspension; (ii) performing any law-related services office that is not staffed by a from an supervising attorney on a full time basis; performing any law-related services for (iii) any client who in the past was represented by the formerly admitted attorney; (iv) representing himself or herself as a lawyer or person of similar status; (v) person, having by telephone, any contact with clients either in or in writing, except as provided in paragraph (3); 25 rendering legal consultation or advice to a (vi) client; appearing on behalf of a (vii) hearing or proceeding or before arbitrator, mediator, court, magistrate, hearing officer any judicial any officer, agency, public or client in any referee, other adjudicative person or body; *** receiving, (x) disbursing or otherwise handling client funds. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE 103. Petitioner and Respondent jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline for Respondent's admitted misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months. 104. Respondent hereby consents to that discipline imposed upon him by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. to this being Attached Petition is Respondent's executed Affidavit required by Pa. R. D. E. 215 (d) , stating that he consents to the recommended discipline and including the mandatory acknowledgments contained in Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) (1) through (4). 105. In support recommendation, it is of Petitioner and Respondent's respectfully submitted that the 26 joint following mitigating circumstances are present: a) Respondent and has admitted charged violating engaging Rules in of misconduct Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement; Respondent b) attributed has unauthorized his practice of law to two surgeries, rotator in cuff and one to December and 2010, respectively, resulted address and from his the one for a torn prostate cancer February economic 2011, pressure that inability to work around that period of time; c) Respondent is understands remorseful he should for be his misconduct disciplined, as and is evidenced by his cooperation with Petitioner and his consent to receiving an eighteen (18) month suspension; and d) Respondent has no record of discipline. 106. A suspension for eighteen (18) months falls within a range of precedent addressing the unauthorized practice of law and other misconduct involving lack of candor. DiGiovanni, for No. 36 DB 2008 unauthorized practice See e.g. ODC v. (suspension for one year and one day of law and certification in Statement of Compliance); 27 submission ODC v. of Cavadel, false Nos. 176 DB 2006 and 5 DB 2007 practice of law, of Compliance, submission of false certification in Statement and violation of RPC 3. 3 (a) ( 1) toward tribunal; discipline); one year (two-year suspension for unauthorized no answer filed in response to petitions for ODC v. and regarding candor No. 14 DB 2007 Unterberger, one day for unauthorized (suspension for practice dishonest conduct relating to a forged letter); No. 135 DB 2005 unauthorized (suspension practice of law for one and year knowingly of law ODC v. and one and Mainor, day making a for false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal and to a third person). Petitioner and Respondent submit that an eighteen (18) month suspension is a fair and appropriate resolution based upon the specific facts of this case and analysis of prior cases. WHEREFORE, that, pursuant Petitioner and Respondent respectfully to Pa.R.D.E. Pa.R.D.E. 215(e) and request 215(g), a three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board review and approve the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent and file a recommendation Respondent with receive the Supreme an eighteen ( 18) Court of Pennsylvania month suspension that and that Respondent be ordered to pay all necessary expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter as a condition to the grant of the Petition. 28 Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION, Chief Disciplinary Counsel Date: 1/aj;J BY :lAfA-iRA7~H}DENYS Attorney Registration No. 78562 Disciplinary Counsel Suite 170 820 Adams Avenue Trooper, PA 19403 610) 650-8210 Date:~13 BY: Respondent 29 VERIFICATION The Petition in statements Support of contained in Discipline on the foregoing Consent are Joint true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date : _/_ /t rf' /1:3 ~RB~R'fGHAM DENYS Disciplinary Counsel BY: §4904, BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 157 DB 2012 Attorney Reg. No. 48970 v. DENNIS P. DENARD, Respondent (Montgomery County) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d) Pa.R.D.E. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY DENNIS P. DENARD, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and hereby submits this affidavit consenting to the recommendation of an eighteen the (18) Commonwealth month suspension from the practice of law in of Pennsylvania in conformity with Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) and further states as follows: 1. He is an attorney admitted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having been admitted to the bar on or about October May 20, 1987. 2. He desires to submit a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 215(d). 3. His consent is freely and voluntarily rendered; not being subjected to coercion or duress, he is and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting this affidavit. 4. He is aware that there are presently pending investigations into misconduct set as allegations forth in that the Joint he has been guilty of in Support of Petition Discipline on Consent to which this affidavit is attached. 5. He acknowledges that the material facts set forth in the Joint Petition are true. 6. if He submits the within affidavit because he charges predicated upon the matter under knows that investigation continued to be prosecuted in the pending proceeding, he could not successfully defend against them. 7. consult He acknowledges that he is fully aware of his right to and employ proceeding. He counsel has not to represent consulted or him in followed the the instant advice of counsel in connection with his decision to consent to execute the within Joint Petition. It is understood that the statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 (relating falsification to authorities) . Signed this I! IL day of January, 2013. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA~ Notarial seal Edward Diasio, Notary Publlc Montgomery Twp., Montgomery County My COmmission Expires Jan. 26, 2015 Sworn to and subscri~d before me this I J> -1. day of Javuc."i , 2013 Notary Public 2 to unsworn BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 157 DB 2012 v. Attorney Reg. No. 48970 DENNIS P. DENARD, Respondent (Montgomery County) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that document upon accordance all with parties the I am this day serving the of record requirements of in 204 this Pa. foregoing proceeding Code §89.22 (relating to service by a participant). First Class and Overnight Mail, as follows: Dennis P. Denard, Esquire 1076 Bethlehem Pike Montgomeryville, Pennsylvania Date: 18936 fit rlf:J ~ in r Attorney Registration No. 78562 Disciplinary Counsel Suite 170 820 Adams Avenue Trooper, PA 19403 610) 650-8210

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.