No. 1937, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1937 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 37 DB 2013 v. Attorney Registration No. 44985 DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT, Respondent (Bucks County) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 1ih day of July, 2013, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated April 11, 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 David Harold Knight is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner No. 37 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 44985 v. DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT Respondent (Bucks 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 Douglas W. Leonard, Howell K. Rosenberg and Stewart L. Cohen, 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 a 1 year 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. BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 3-7 DB 2013 No. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Attorney Reg. No. 44985 DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT Respondent (Bucks County) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.D.E. 215{d) Petitioner, (hereinafter, Counsel, "ODC") his respectfully discipline of Paul Killion, J. Ciampoli, David Harold Knight through counsel, petition on Disciplinary Disciplinary Office by and Harold E. Respondent, and the the consent, Enforcement Jr., Chief Board to ("Pa.R.D.E.") "Respondent") , in and by Esquire, Schwartzman, C. Disciplinary pursuant Disciplinary Disciplinary Counsel (hereinafter, James Counsel support of Rule of Pennsylvania 215(d), and in is situated support thereof state: 1. Judicial 62485, ODC, Center, whose 601 Harrisburg, principal office Commonwealth Pennsylvania, Ave., is Suite 2700, invested, at Pa. P.O. Box pursuant to F ll ED MAR 1 3 2013 Office of the Secretary The Disciplinary Board of the Supremo Court of Pennsylvania Pa.R.D.E. 207, with the power and duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth prosecute all disciplinary of Pennsylvania proceedings brought in and to accordance with the various provisions of the aforesaid Enforcement Rules. 2. 1960, Respondent, David Harold Knight, was born on July 18, and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth on November 25, 1985. Respondent is on active status and maintains his E. office 18901. at 93 Court Street, Doylestown, Pennsylvania Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED 3. In November of 2010, "Jane Doe" was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance ( "DUI") . 4. Ms. Doe had previously received an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for a prior DUI. 5. In or about February 2011, Ms. his office on Trenton Road, Levittown, PA. 6. Doe met Respondent at ("First Meeting") Prior to the First Meeting, Respondent and Ms. Doe had never met. 2 7. At the First Meeting: a) Ms. Doe advised Respondent and her recent arrest for of her previous ARD our and inquired as to his fee for representation; b) Respondent quoted Ms. cover the work Doe the associated fee with of an to $1,000 anticipated guilty plea agreement; c) Ms. Doe advised Respondent that she did not have a lot of money; d) After further discussion, the parties agreed that Ms. Doe would perform oral sex on Respondent; e) Respondent left his desk and locked his office d0or; and f) After Respondent locked the office door, Ms. Doe performed oral sex on Respondent. 8 0 A few weeks after the first meeting, entered his appearance on behalf of Ms. Doe for her 9. meeting, matter, Respondent our matter. On at least two additional occasions after the first and Ms. prior Doe to the performed conclusion of Ms. oral on Respondent sex Doe's criminal in his Levittown office, after he had locked the door. 10. Respondent represented Ms. Doe until the conclusion of the criminal matter. 3 11. Although Respondent had never previously represented Ms. Doe, he did not provide her a writing that communicated the basis or rate of his fee. 12. collected Respondent never billed Ms. Doe for legal services nor any monetary payment from Ms. Doe for his legal representation. SPECIFIC RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VIOLATED Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: A. RPC 1. 5 (b), which states that when a not· regularly represented the client, lawyer has the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; and B. RPC l.S(j), have sexual which states that a lawyer shall not relations with a client unless a consensual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced. 4 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE 13. Petitioner and Respondent jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline for Respondent's admitted misconduct is a one-year suspension. 14. Respondent hereby consents to that discipline imposed upon him by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. being Attached to this Petition is Respondent's executed Affidavit required by Rule 215 (d), Pa.R.D.E., recommended stating discipline acknowledgements he consents including and contained that in Rule to the mandatory the through 215(d) (1) ( 4) ' Pa.R.D.E. 15. In support recommendation, it of is Petitioner respectfully and joint Respondent's submitted that there are several mitigating circumstances: a) Respondent has and violating admitted the engaging charged Rules in of misconduct Professional Conduct; b) Respondent has cooperated with Petitioner, evidenced by Respondent's agreement to spare Ms. as admissions herein, Doe is his the embarrassment of having to testify in a public proceeding and his agreement to keep her identity anonymous; 5 c) Respondent is remorseful understands he should for be his misconduct and as is disciplined, evidenced by his consent to receiving a one-year suspension; and d) Respondent has practiced law for over twenty- seven years and has no record of discipline. 16. Effective Professional Conduct relations between a January 1.8(j) 1, 2005, was lawyer and a Pennsylvania amended to Rule prohibit client regardless of sexual of whether the relationship is consensual and regardless of the absence of prejudice to the client. The Comment to the Rule explains rationale for this prohibition as follows: The relationship between lawyer and client is a fiduciary one in which the lawyer occupies the highest position of trust and confidence. The relationship is almost always unequal; thus, a sexual relationship between a lawyer and client can involve unfair exploitation of the lawyer's fiduciary role, in violation of the lawyer's basic ethical obligation not to use the trust of the client to the client's disadvantage. In addition, such a relationship presents a significant danger that, because of the lawyer's emotional involvement, the lawyer will be unable to represent the client without impairment of the exercise of independent professional judgment. 6 the There are no reported cases violation of RPC 1.8(j). However, in Pennsylvania involving a other jurisdictions that have dealt with consensual sexual relations between an attorney and client have imposed suspensions of varying degrees depending on the specific aggravating and mitigating facts e.g., Cleveland Bar Association v. Feneli, presented. See, 712 N.E.2d 119 (Ohio 1999) (eighteen-month suspension with final six months stayed for attorney who commencing client Iowa engaged in representation she might oral sex with of her and reduce her fees client shortly thereafter suggesting 682 (Iowa 2006) (indefinite to by performing sexual acts); Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. N.W.2d after 713 McGrath, suspension from practice of law with no possibility of reinstatement for three years where a convincing that preponderance attorney solicited of the evidence sexual favors supported from former payment for legal services); Akron Bar Association v. 819 N.E.2d 677 (Ohio 2004) (two-year suspension, a finding clients in Williams, with last eighteen months stayed on compliance with certain conditions for attorney who had sex with a vulnerable client and lied in a deposition under oath about the relationship) Petitioner and Respondent case, submit that in this particular a one-year suspension is the appropriate discipline after A significant suspension of one weighing the relevant factors. 7 year is warranted. Respondent was in a position of trust and confidence and engaged in sexual relations in his first meeting with a vulnerable client. However, militating strongly against a more the severe sanction is Joint Petition for Consent, fact that by agreeing Respondent has spared Ms. to Doe humiliation and embarrassment associated with testifying public proceeding and has also agreed to keep the this the in a client's identity anonymous. WHEREFORE, ·Petitioner and Respondent respectfully request that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement 215(e)and 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 with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that Respondent receive a one-year suspension 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. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION Attorney Reg. No. 20955, Chief Disciplinary Counsel 8 Date: ) /6/t] HAROLD E. CrAMPOLI, JR. Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Reg. No. 51159 District II Office Suite 170, 820 Adams Avenue Trooper, PA 19403 (610) 650-8210 1··1--DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT Respondent Date: 3) ~~/3 . SCHWARTZMAN, ES C~:il for Respondent ~AMES 9 VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Joint Petition In Support of Discipline on Consent Discipline are true and correct belief to the best of and are made subject my to knowledge or the penalties information of 18 §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 3(6({_) Date Disciplinary Counsel DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT Respondent and Pa.C.S.A. BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner DB 2013 No. v. Attorney Reg. No. 44985 DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT Respondent (Bucks County) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY DAVID deposes HAROLD and KNIGHT, hereby being submits this duly sworn affidavit according to consenting law, to the recommendation of a one-year suspension from the practice of law in the Commonwealth 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 November 25, 1985. 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; he is not being subjected to coercion or duress, and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting this affidavit. 4. He is aware investigations into misconduct set as that allegations forth in the there that Joint are he presently has Petition pending been guilty of in Support of Discipline on Consent of which this affidavit is attached hereto. 5. He acknowledges that the material facts set forth in the Joint Petition are true. 6. if He submits the within affidavit because he knows that charges filed, predicated upon the matter under investigation were or 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 proceeding. employ counsel He has retained, to represent him in the instant consulted and acted upon the advice of counsel, James C. Schwartzman, Esquire, in connection with his decision 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 day of February 2013. DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT Sworn to and subscribed before me this ;;;f;7h day of hEo/?t//J/2;/ , 2 013 -2- to unsworn BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. DB 2013 v. Attorney Reg. No. 44985 DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT Respondent (Bucks County) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon all parties of record in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of 204 Pa. Code §89.22 (relating to service by a participant) . Overnight Mail, as follows: James C. Schwartzman, Esquire Stevens & Lee, P.C. 1818 Market Street, 29th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Dated: j /b/ L? t~ HAROLD~AMPOL, JR. Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Reg. No. 51159 Office of Disciplinary Counsel District II Office 820 Adams Avenue, Suite 170 Trooper, PA 19403 (610) 650-8210 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. DB 2013 v. Attorney Reg. No. 44985 DAVID HAROLD KNIGHT Respondent (Bucks County) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon all parties of record in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of 204 Pa. Code §89.22 (relating to service by a participant). Overnight Mail, as follows: James C. Schwartzman, Esquire Stevens & Lee, P.C. 1818 Market Street, 29th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Dated: 3{b/ L? r~ HAROLD~, JR. Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Reg. No. 51159 Office of Disciplinary Counsel District II Office 820 Adams Avenue, Suite 170 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.