No. 1940, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1940 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No.5 DB 2013 v. Attorney Registration No. 208824 JOSEPH D. LENTO, Respondent (Philadelphia) 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 23, 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 Joseph D. Lento is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, followed by a period of probation for one year, subject to the following conditions: 1. Respondent shall select a practice monitor subject to the approval of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 2. The practice monitor shall do the following during the period of Respondent's probation: a. Periodically examine Respondent's law office organization and procedures to ensure that he is maintaining an acceptable tickler system, filing system and other administrative aspects of his practice; b. Meet with Respondent at least monthly to examine his progress towards satisfactory and timely completion of clients' legal matters and regular client contact; c. Answer law office management questions, offer practical guidance as to how to ethically operate a law practice, ensure that Respondent does not improperly solicit potential clients and monitor his compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct; d. File quarterly written reports on a Board-approved form with the Secretary of the Board; and e. Report to the Secretary any violations by Respondent of the terms and conditions of probation. 3. Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. A True Cop~ Patricia Nicola As Of 7/17/2013 ~· }&iJ.J Att.est: Ch1ef Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. No.5 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 208824 JOSEPH D. LENTO Respondent (Philadelphia) 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 David E. Schwager, Stephan K. Todd, Jane G. Penny, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter on April4, 2013. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a one year suspension to be followed by one year probation, subject to the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition 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: 4~2.3\2 0\ 3 David E. S h ager, Panel Chair The Discipll ary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania MINkYj'1MJf7.lll:Jl!lillilNm~M:IDwwLjt166 96291 g . ~doll>-1i ¢FiBlr~O~viewer.googleusercontei!Mill:m/'!'i4JN.ell'secure ... J To;91G1069629i9 BEFOR~ THE O!$C!~L!NAa~ SOARD OW ~H~ SUPR~ME COURT OF PENNSYLVANI~ OFF!C~ OF DXSCIP.LXNARY COUNSEL, · l?ti!titioner No. 5 DEl 20l2 "· JOSJ!IPH o. 1\.tty. Reg. NQ, :!OSS24 LENTO, (Philadelphia) JO:tm' Plll :t!l.' ON IN Bt111f!IO!l.'r Oll' I:IISOIPL:tNE ON CONSm~ ONDER Pa.R.D.m, d J?etitionr£r, Office of Pisciplinetl:y Counsel ( "ODC"), by Paul J. !(illion, ChJ.i!lf P:Lgo:J.plinary Counsel, o<nd a:a:r.l:':l<!!t IL BrumJ;Jtug, Oiso:l.plinary Counsel., and. Respondent, Joseph c, Samuel Strett<::>n 1 E:aquire, on Oiscip,l:!.ne O!l.sciplinary o. file this .Joint Pet:ition In Support of Consent Under lllnfm:cemen~ Pennsylvania (Pa,R,D.E.) Rule of 21S(d), and respectfully represent that: 1. l?etit:ioner, wnoee kll;-ino:Lp«l office is loc~:~t.ed at Pennsy1 vania Judic:l.al Csnte:t', Suite 2700, 601 Commonwaal.th invested, pursuant to Rule· 207 o:l'. 1:h<!l l?$nneyl vania Rules of Discipl:tnaxy Enforoement (herGinafter "Pa.R.D.E. "), with ths power antl. duty to investisate all mmtters involving alleged misconduct; of an· attorney admitted to prTctlcL E.D APR 0 4 2013 Office of the Secretary The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 4 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM MTNk Yj~9 )f~l!ljlll~rn0'$:M:llww Ljll106 96291 9 ~d®-1;lR!:Pfl!OI3llviewer.googleusercontejllt\GIDJ1/1!ie;<&!l'secure ... E15561il45~ MAR-26·2013 11St!57 l'rom:DiSCi.F"L[NARY COUNSEL To:916105952919 in the Commonwealch of Pennlilylvania md to discip1:i.lla.ry proaaadinge brou;;rbl: p:r;o~;~eauta :l.n accordance of with Pu~<4'22 all r..he DisciplJ.nary illn:fo:r:cement. 2. ResponO.ent, Joseph D, Lento, was admitted to t:.he practice of law in Pennsylvania on Oetober 3. s1.1bject l?ursur;mt to t:he to l?a.Pt.D.E. ~3, 20:\,(a) (1), disciplinar;y 2008. Respondent jurisdiction :ls the Oise:l.plinary 'Soard of the supreme Court of Pennsylvania, XI. FACTUAL APmXSSXONS AND VIP~TIONS OF RULES QF PROFESSIONAL COND~C~ 4. Respondent speoiHcally admits tlle tactual allega.tions and paragraphs 1 . 5, .!?~·act ~t itioner th~ough 23, 90~\clrJsiona to the t.7;'uth of of law contained ;l.n lnir~ . all relevant dmes, Respondent was a pd vat.'iil w~t:.h an attorney regiatratl.on address of J.n south Broad Street, :a"d Floor, l?b;i.ladelphia, li'A 6. ay Respondent to Pennsylvania, Novembe~ letter dated Dwayn<~ Sl:evens, Curran Fromhold 10, l.0\10"1. 2011, from Firet Judicia). District of Co~reotionat Facility, Bail Unit, Respondent ¢ a. introduced himself iil.lil a li'hiladelphia lawyer who was continuinr,;J to take l!ltepe to expand 2 5 of23 3/30/2013 I 0:36 AM ~d®-$'!1RlllFIIO~viewer.goog1eusercont<1!lAGIDni'!'iS~&'secure ... Tol'il15il?l6961?919 hia praot~oe, law criminal (emphasis pract:Lce" def!'llnse my pa~ticula~, "in in ox-ig:Lnal.); b. explained that he waa ":reaching out" to M:r. stevens "'' in light of his wol:'k at l?l:'!!tri.al stated that he would like to mptaak to Mr. Stevens "about ;;;>t the prospect benef:lr::i.aJ. business a relationshJ.p" mwtu&lly (emphasis in Ol!':l.ginal) i d. added that what he had "in mind woult\ tak:e minimal e;t:l!ozot on" Mr. Stevens' part:, although h;i.$ ¢se:r::vioa would. :be of value to e. noted that he parson about would p;r:e,fet· to the pa.rt;i,culaJ:"Ii! and apeak in F.I'I.!SJSG!Sted meeting Mr. Stevll!tl.S for l1.1noh; and f. 7. on concluded by giving Mr. SteYema ll.GlfilJ?OtlOE!tJ.t'fll December 26, .:aou, RIJ!epondl!lnt: sent individual letters tCt the foUowing 01ight Clerical Assistants oUilfiligned to the :Sail, l?retdal. Sa!rvices TJnit at the Criminal Jusl;ice Karen Fequa; Styvens Georges; Shaneita Qoode; ,:l 6of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM MT'NkYJ~1)fZlli:Jll!l;llliNm~Ml!ww Ljilt 069 6291 9 ~-eEH!<l!:!i ~d®-111R!llF1IOISilviewer.googleusercontellli\GIDn/' ¬J~W."ell'secure ... 15o or Prom ¢Dl:SCIPLI~IARY CCl!.INSEL 0!16S61M51'!8 !~ictany Ke~ly; Low~YI Meredith Po ¢e Ofi"i!:e To: 9l!:;1101ii96Cl:;ll9 Davia Quart:ullo; Lillian Ramos; and Michelle Williams. a. In Respondent' a letters to the !?retrial Sex:v:Loes Unit employees, Respondent ¢ a. inta;o<:!u.;;ed h~mself as a !?hiladelph:i.a lawye:~: who was oontinuing to take his law oriminal b. practice, de:fl.!nae~ "in st:~>ps t:Q Glxpantt particular, my practice"; explained that he was "J;"e;;~~::J:l.ing out" to the Ji'retrial. Se:rv:l.cas Unit employee in light of his/her work at: li'retr:lal SeJ:vioee; c. stated tlM ¢t h~ propoaine was "a mutually beneficial buainef.llii' J;"elationshi:p"; d. advieed that he posts bail wM "t:cyiitg" t.o find. out who in so that end"; e. noted that the information Respondent sought ¢may be. public record although I do not know how to aocems tbe info:t:'mation"; f. added that wh.!tt Respondent had in mind wou.1d tak.e minimal. ef:Eort on the employee' e Jila:r.t, .btlt his/her "sex-vice would v~lue to [Respondent] and [Respondent be of 4 7 of23 3/30/2013 I 0:36AM MTNkYjJ;j;t)f~l!ijb.ilNm~Ml!wwLjln:e6962919 ~dll.C.S'ItR8lf'(!OI'!lviewer.googleusercontel!li\Gill)n/'t\isW.t&'secure ... ~lf1fH:l6-~013 16:57 Fr~m:DISCIPt.!NARY COUNSEL 8155S!.i1451:8 fQ:9~611"15962919 up could) with Pue:r'<12 [h:i.m/he,;l accor<\itlgly"; and g. prov:l.dmd the ~:retrial Code o:E telephone numbeJ~ for Se.v;t.oes employee t;,o call.. for the First Judio).al District of l?enneJyl van:!.a, § IV. A, li:l, c, 1li <~nd T!, prohibita 9. ':t'hec R~~:spondenl: 1 1il conduct ®mploye1u1 from soliciting, aco!l!pttng, · o:r: agreeing to accept anything o:e v~tlue from amy J?E!raon havit ¢9 an interest in a matter before the court by which they are employed. 10, In Respondent' e letee:r:s to M:r:. liiltevene and the eJ.ght Pretrial Serv.icerll Unit emplc1yees, Respondent: a. atten'tpt:ed e~age to in<:ii..\O>!! court en1ployees to in condudt in v:lolation o:t ttH!Iir duty as public iiletvants; b. engaged in oond~1ct mis~eprssentation; c. involving deceU or and engag<:!d in conduct that was prejudicial to the adm:lniet,ation of justice. 11. !Juring the week of: .;ranuary 2 1 went to the Information Cou.nter Crimirtal Justice Center in a. 'Respondent ¢:;~n :'1012, ResponCJent: the second floor of the ~hilad~lphia, :r:ec;tul!lsted during which time: th.a t court e111Jiloyee Erittany Eaggio take a stack of Respondent ¢e 5 8 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM ~d®-1'1H<IllfliOtlllviewer.googleuserconteillA(lll)n/'l!ienll'secure ... MAR·25·2013 16:57 From:OlSC!PLINARY COUNSEL 2155604588 buaineee · To:'31610\!i9629:!9 and ca:~:<:te keep them M the Information counter-1 Respondent. asked Ms. Baggio Respondent's cards cut to a c. l.;~wyer pe~sons to give who needed ¢md tell lche person her name; Respondent oftered co pay Ms. Baggio if anyone to whom she gave a card decided to hire d. ~espondent as an attorney; !l.Ul;)O!ld.ent ex.pl.ained to Mrs, Saggio that this arrangement woulli be "ju~;~t between" her and RaliJ?Or<df!nt ; e. Ma. O\lt f. :eagg:lo etated. that her name to i~he would not J?(lll:'lllons who m;~eded give a lawyer 1 Respondent suggeet.ed that Ms, Baggio put her init:Lals on the b;aok o£ the caJ:ds so that Respondent would know that the referr~ls came from Ms. Saggio and she could get paid; g. Respondent reiterated that this arrangement was "just between" her and Respondent; i . R>!lspondent put: hb bus:Ln<i!ss thlll c~rds on t;op of :rnformation Ct)unte:t' M.d. left. 6 9 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM MAR·26·2013 16:58 ~rom:OISC!PLINARY COUNSEL e155604528 To>911S1el5962919 oonversat:::ion with Ms. Elil.ggio, R!tl$pondentl a, <>ttempted to ebal:e legal. fees with a nonlawye:rt attempte<l solioit. to p:roft;~saional emp;Loyment throusll an intermediary who wol.<ld be in engaged p;roepective mot iva personal olien.l:, contact ·when for with a sisn:I.Hoant a doing Respondent's pecuniary gain; c, attempted to induce m court employee to engage in dOnduct in violation of he:r. duty aa a public servant; ct. engaged in oond1.1.ot involving daQed.t or misrepresanta.tion; and e, 13. engaged in CQXJ.duct. that was prejud.:l,cial to Prior to Janu~~y 10, 201~, Respondent ¢et~ ¢ned to the Information Counter on the se,cond Uoo:t' of the Criminal Justice Center in li'hiladell.phia, du:d119 which time from Judge employee Jonathon. l4, By 1etter dated January ~. 2012, 7 10 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM ~doiC4'11RBHIOil!lviewer.googleusercontel!!t\Gll)n/'IDJ;JII.Wsecure ... To:916i069152919 ad.viaed Respondent that he had become <;.w1.u·e a. of Respondent's soliciting of ~- to lette~ client Court referrals a mutually employees oo. tha basis bu$inesa ~enefioial relat!I.Ol1Ship ¢ ¢ 1 explldnad b, that ltespondent' s "appears to be <I economic reward in employee ¢ s olea.r and welc(.Jma exchange referral (Respondent] communication o:l! yout· for of a clientw an Court to you [Respon..:lent' s l law practice": c. requested an expli!!.m!l.tion from Respondent l!l.nd the idEint:ity Respondent w%'~ting; appo:t.nt:.ad Judicial 15. after 15 above, individ1.1a1e ITI!lde such an to whom offe:e in Respondent atto:t<nay Distr~.ct from list the for cou:r.t ¢ the nrst of .i'illl'.\nsylvanill.. Respondent received Judge Her:t·on' m letter on Ol:' Janua~ 16. ha.d all ani! suepen<:l~;~d d. of 11, 2012. By his oonduct as alleg<l!d in parag;r;a.phe 5 through ~eepondent viol.ated tbe following Rules of Pto:Eesll!ionaJ. Conduct' 8 11 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM ~dGll.>1;'11F®f1lOISilviewer.googleuserconte[!lMill)nl'l.i!lJN.el!'secure ... To:916106962919 MAI'Hl6-2013 11!il51'l From:DISC!PL!NARY COU1<1SEI. 1:15S6045eEI e.. liWC whj,oh 5. 4 (a) , states a t:hilll: law~nilr or law firm shall not sll.a:r.'l!l legal fees w1.th a nonlawyer, except: that: an agr.eement ( l) l;ly a lawyer with the J.awyer ¢ a fir.rn, partne!.", or assQciate may prcnriCle fo:t' the payment of over a ;reasonable period of time money, death, the to or (2) 1.1ndertakea to o'>mplete unf:lniehed legal bUsiness of a deoeased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that of the oompeneation t:otal repr.esents the services deaeued lawyer1 may include comp<*nRHlltion or. (3) which rende~ed po:~;tion J:a.i;rl·y by the a lawyer or law Urth nonlawyer employees r~·tirement in a plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-eharins arrangement; h.w firm may purchGU!Ie (4) the a lawyer or practice o£ another lawyer or law firm from an estate or other eli~:i.ble J?!'l:r:son or entity consistant with Rule 1..17; 11nd (5) aourt-ewarded legal 12 of23 .emes a lawyer may lilh!i!.r.e with a no'l:'lprofit 3/3012013 I 0:36AM MTNk YjJ59YZjllt.JJ!lllli:l)lm~Mllww Lji&I 6696291 9 MF-1FH!£H:f1113 16:58 ~d®~'$RB:f110131lviewer.googleuserconte!BP.(lll)n/'3,iS>v.ell'secure ... From:DlSCIPLII~RY CCUNSEL Ei551Sil14528 organi.lllil.tion To ¢91611116'l62919 that: emJ?loyecl, Pum: 12'22 o~ :t:etdned X'I!C!Ommended employment of the lawye;t' in the matteX'; b. RPC ?.~(iii), not wnich states that a lavtyer shall in·P~>X'!!!O:I'l. solicit professional employment prior intermediary from a PX'o~peotive whom the lawyeX' has no family w~th client by or reh.ti.onehip l'rofessional when or a significant motive for the lawyer's doi.ng so is the lawyer's pecuniary gai.n, unless the peX'son or contacted family, is close a lawyer a or prior profees:l.onal relationshiJil with the lawye:L'. The cl:lntact term person, 11 the sol.:l.oit" or o:f Rul(b in- :t'e.\ll-time by but, communio~tion, requ:!.rements 7,3(b), includes telei?hone .by e~eo~ronic personal, has subject 7 .l and to Rule written does ooll'llllunicat:l.ons, which. 111i!IY :lnolude targeted, direct mail advertisements; o. RPC a. 4 (a) , profeH!Hlional viol.ate whi.tlh states ml.!lliCIOnduot or attempt of Professional to Cond~oc, for that a violate it lawy$;J; the ~s to R.ules knowingly assist or 10 13 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM MTNkYjl!I~Jf$f.j~$!mi04tMllwwLjfi106%2919 ~d®.S'Itf~Slf'q:IQ~viewer.googleusercontellli\Gil)n/'J.i4WloWsecure ... MAR-26-2013 1&:58 From ¢DISCIPL.It-IAR~' COUNS51. E:155604528 Pa 9 ~: ~:;pgg To :91611il696S1919 induoe another t.o do so 1 or do eo t.b:roU!Jh the acta of anoeher1 d. a. 4 (c), Rl?C whicl'l professional fo;r misconduct in ens;~ge that atatllH> conduct involving is lawyer a. it to dishonesty 1 fraud, decait or misrepresentation; and a. Rl?C whi,:h B. 4 (d), stal:.ss mis\;<m!;h.J.ot pro:faesional :fol:' that: a i9 it lmwye;~; to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of jumtioe, III. 17, tlle appropriate disdpline for DISClP~XNm ~;ecommend R,espondent 's one-yea:~; lil\.llllt;llliriS).on, that ;;o,dm:ltted to be followed by one of probation with a prat::t:Lc:e monitor, subject to the conditions set ·forth in lS. being ron PetitiQne:l:' a.nd Respondl:Jnt jointly misconduct is a yaa:~: JOI~ RECOMME~A~ION Respondent irnpoaed by 1, 22-22, J.:of.ra. hG~reby the col'l.sents sup:r.111me Attached to Affidavit rsquil:'l!:d by l?.;a. ¢ R.D.E. thie~ Pet:!. ti,<m consents t:o the recommended me.l1datory ac::l~nowledg(llmentl!! :la t::o Court the of l?ennsyl vania, Respondent's 215 (d), di~Jo:l.pl:lne discipline executed atatin\i;t that h<11i and including the oont1dned in l?a. R.. P, l:ll, :ns (<:!) (1) bhrough (4 l ¢ ll 14 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM ~d<le-1'11Rlllf1101>1lviewer.googleusercontej!!I\Gil)n/\l.i!l~&'secure ... MRR ¢26-20~:l 16:59 Fr~m:DISC1F'L1NAiilY COUNSF.L !!1SS61il4S2S 1P. Petitione:t' and To ¢9~G1069629l,9 Reepondent;. P ¢ ¢e:i4122 ~ubmit l\'"eepec:tfully that there is the following aggrav!!ting factor: a. In October 2009, Respo~ent, employed by the Fia:st Jur.:ticial Juvenile ~robation Oist~iat as a Officer since 2002, from terminated. wno had been his was £or employment failing to return to work. Reepon~ent 20. and CDC reepeotf.ully submit that there are the following miti,gating fl)lctorllH a By virtue of Oiscipline o on \:hi~ Respondent Consent, <'Al':presse<:'l. reoogniti<:lll. of his Respondent il.il a young, b. signing .has :Reeponcl,ent' s miscond.l.tr.tl~ r and ine:Jtpe:rienced lawyer who had been pJ::Mti.ciXlg law for thl;ee years at the time; o.e his mie,oonduct, 21. Ref.lpondent to mid·t-1ovembe:r: From asa:Let ~u:l.l:iated. him il'l t'o 2011 ~O:l2, m:td-January two sc:hemes to pay goveJ:"nment employees obta~ning nE:w ol,i.enl:s. Cases where to haYe a government employee perform personal services for an attorney result in serious public eo g. , O:t!l!:l.ae t>:li oa 200:L, payments D.f.m.;~llp1i.niiiJI:'Y GS l?a. P.&C.4t)\ 1Sl9 to a state Cc!.Ul.sel v. {:1004] senate>:~:" See, discipline. Pana.;oella, No. 99 (J?anarel.la made monthly who took lii-Otione that 12 15 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM MAI<-26-E!313 15r59 From: D!SCXPLIHARY CIJUHS51.. i:i1$SSMS26 benef:t.t;ted Paneralla'e businell>lll consp:i..re~<::l and w:i.th the etat.e senator to oonceal the <.U.aolosure of thlll paymEmts; Pana;r:alla ple'llded guilty to one oount of accef"li!ory after the faot to re<!ldved an honest a four-year Clrde;~; 7/23/1999), wite fraud scheme re.instatemel'l~ SUSJilenaion), vac.;~ted afte1 ¢ conviction (S. Ct, services (S .ct. order 2/6/2012) and g:ra.m:ecl 1 O:l!:t::J.r:e a!! reinst:a1:ement d.enied (S.Ct. Orde:t:' 2/4/U92), xeinstate.ment g:r<l!t.lt:ed (S.Ct. Order 2/20/2002) (Qlovll!!r :r.epeatedly bribed two undercoveJ:' !NS <:J.fe:l.cers to prooess he:r. clients' oasee more quioJtly and then increased convicted 1997, of D.ad. bribery Rpt. and 6/7/2001 cl;i.!)barred) ; (s.ct. orda:r. addition to minpp:to);ll:!'l.ating funds f;J;"orn indiv~.duals ...,~ individual O££J.ae 8/2/2001) v<~>.r:i.cus at (in estates and whom he was the dou:.:t·ll!J?)?Ointed gu.a.rdian, Worobey oonapi:t:l'.ld to inflate 1111 and in matters cha:cgee~ in ii!nd x:.:i.ck back :Eundl3 to which the theft,related charges 351, 371-372, s;aa N.EJ.2d. ll52, ll6l-ll62 (MHlli) (a f.ormer State At: t:orney General, diabarred). had conv:l.ot,..d of Assili!to.nt and ind;J.vtd1,1al who had Slile repeat:.l!ld :1.3 16 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM MTNkYjEg)f~J!ljb.i:Nm~MllwwLjll:l06S62919 MAR·26-2013 16:59 ~d<lC.S'ltRI:llfllOtl!Sviewer.googleuserconteii!I\G!!ln/'3.i~M!)'secure ... Prom:D!SCIP~INARY COl~SEL 2185904528 ~~g ¢ ¢16'22 lo:916106962919 telephone convenations with e. pc~liee officer about paying the police officer to persuade a coml?laining witness to ch~~gss, drop w~~ acquitted of all criminal chargee1 S1.1preme Court of Ulinois imposed a two·yeax- eUSJ?enBion on l!ltt:.,,J~.ge:r, finding th-at eitta~:tney 1 a.n scheme for "the,payment of s , . mon~y. in involveme;nt to & poli~e a qf£icer in order to influence his [the poHC!Il officer ¢ s] conduct:" was 11 an egregious act."). While iilndogous I the fMtS of all the above cases are oJ.ea:r.:t.y d..:l.stinguiBhaPle Most matl::er. frt;>m impo:~:tantly, the facts unlike the in ResponO....nt 1 s foregoing cases, Respondent was nei\:he:>: arrested nor convicted of a crima. In aCI.<;l..ition, in.fJ.uanoing a l'l.!Uipo!~d.ent c;Jt;mduct 's government employee to did make not oonce:m an o:t:t;;i.dal decision that would impact tl::\e adm:l.ni.atrat;i.on of justice. Rather, Resp<;mdent's. conduot was an per.sua\l.e that gov~a:t:"l1.tl'l.liilnt could unsucu:z~ssful attempt to employees to undertalce m:tnistll!rial acts economic<~lly benefit~ All Retspcmdent. told, Respondent 1 s conduc:t:, which spanned a total of two months I was l~mited in time, scope, and impact. Respondent shOuld 22. r~;JMiva a pedod of suspension that would be commensurate with hie misconduct: and would dater other gov<!!:rnment attorneys employees t(;) from attempting unci¢rtal~.e to persuade an. attorney' e p,eraonal 14 17 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM biQding. from Nlllither Mspondent nor :~:.aqui.:l!'ing hea:r:ing. o£ co l<e.spol:.\d9nt th~< publi<::: would bendit. tmdergo a reinstatement: !l.$S!:)Ont;ient 1 however I would benefit from a pt!lriod probation with praotl,oe a when ReHllpondent prot>ation, F.esp"ndent monitor l:'esumes th$ praetice of hw. As would oon~.t:l.onlil of Re>~pondent' requirell. to maet l::>e s in-perscm with the pri!I.Otidll mon:Lt.or on a monthly basis and maintain weekly telephoM oontaGt with the p:ract ice monitor. wo11ld l::ll'! ;tvaila:ble t:o 1 answer The practice monitor Re~pond.ent' s law l:.lf:Eim~ management: que lilt:. ions; offe:c pract;lcal guidan.ce e.e to how to does not improperly !llolicit potencial clients r and mon:l.tor Responlilllnt'iil condudt. progr.ess compliance With the Rules of l?rofessl.onal The practice monitor would also file quarterly repo;tts w;!.th the Secretary o~ the P;i.Jllciplina.ry aoaro <md office of Diso:i..plina.ty Coun!l!lill and immediately :r.<llport arty violations of the ioond.itions of Respondent' e probation. 23. Accordingly, Petitioner and Respondent jointly agree that Resp011.dent should l!'Meive a one-year sus,pens:l.on, to )::)e followed by one year of p:coba.ticll with a pra¢tice monitor 1 subjEtct eo tl:la oondS.t:ions that Raii!pondent meet 15 18 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM ~d<!l>'ili'llRI:ll!'111D~viewer.googleusercontelllAGeJn/'l.iew.tl¥secure ... MAR-211>-a!!i:S 17:00 Fhm: DISCJPLIHRRY COUNSEL !'1155&04528 ma;l.ntain weekly teleph<;>;ne Tot91511l6962'319 contact hilil w:i.th :r;n:aotioa monitor., and not v:l.ola.t.e any ll.ulei1J of l?rofsss;l.onal Conduct during the one-yea.r term of probat!.ort. Wl'IBREFORill, :l'(lltit:ioner Respondent respectfully ~l5(e) a.nd 215(sl, raquest that 1 a, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. and the review and approve the ,Joint l?eti t:i.o11 in Support recommendation with to thai~ probation with a pra~tice m~et year of w:Lth the !;JrMtioe mo~~it.or in-person on e1 monthly W<il~Ukly tel!l'phOl1e <;~onta~::t not one by monitor, subject to the conditions that lospondtmt monitor, Cl:;lUX't the Supxoeme Court followed ~a its eupreme the J?entlsylvania :t:'l!lCOmtnanding suspension, and c:onsent on of bas~s, with maintain pra<:l:ioe his of Rules 'IJ'iolate Professional Conduct during the one-year te;~;m of proba,t;i,on; and b. pursuant to three-member Pa.R.D.E. panel of. 215(g) the and 2l5(i), Disciplinary the Soard ent111r an Order that Respondent pay the necessary ctol!lts and expenseEJ incurred in the ;l..nvestigati.on 19 of23 3/30/2013 10:36 AM MTNkY.i}:l!l)fZlNJJ!I.jb.ilNmi04!MllwwLjii1069E.2919 ' ~d®-$'11Rillf-111Dil!lviewer.googleusercontel!lAGIDn/l!jeW,r&'secure ... ' 11~R-26·F.ila13 1T:00 From:DISCIPI.I~IAP.Y COLINSE;L 215561l14SI'!S To ¢9l.6i06962\319 Seo;,:-etary :Lmmediatii!lY file the recommendation of the panel and the Petition with tna Supreme Court "'~· thout e~nd regard to Respondent ¢ s payment of. costs e;x:penses, and all ooste and e!ll.pensee l:le paid by RIUtpon<:lent within thirty of the date of panel' e approval of the Pil.!!!cipline ~he on Consent u.olese Rll'I!IJ?ondent and tohe Board Seoretacy enter into a p:lan, confirmed :ln writing, to pay the Reapaatfully and join.tJ.y submj,tted, O!!'l?ICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSW.L PAUL J'. !{,l:;r..Ll:CIN Cal~f Date DISClP.LT.NARY COUNSEL >y ~ot arumiOrg tl~sc.i.pl i.r..t$Xy Counsal R, Date 1'7 20 of23 411/20!3 2:56PM MTNkYjl:l!l¥2ilt.lt!lill~m~Mllww Lj!>i 0 5 95 291 9 ' ~d®-1:'11Rtllf'll!J~viewer.googleusercontel!lAGiiDn/-at~&'secure ... 1: MAI'!·!!G·l£B13 17:00 From:D!SCIPUNAAY COUNSEL 2155594528 To:916166962919 Pa ¢e:i'lllli2S SEFORI!: THlll OISCJ:l?J.INAR'.i.SOARO OF THI> SUPREME COURT OF FENNSYLV~lA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY CO~S~L, Petitioner N¢. 5 Olil 20:1.3 v. 1 Atty. Reg, No. 208624 JOSEP!! D. LE!N'l'O, The s·~ataments centa.ined in fo:regoins tli.!ll Unde~ Petition :tn Suppc:rt o.f. DisoipHne on Consent 2l5(d), l?a,:R.JJ.El., ar~t~ Joint llule crue and correct to l'he best of ou:r ~ubjecrt knowledge or infor.mation and belief and are made tllli! penalties of 18 Pa.c.s. § 4!l04 1 :~;elating to to unii!worn £a1eifieation to authorities. Date H~~ Date ~~~~:.¥&¥'J--Jo . ph L!ilnto 1 31~ta ld.DI3 l'!a;r;;;~;";l.et R. E.>::umberg Disciplina~ Re Counsel ond<l!tlt J Cddfi 21 of23 : 411/2013 2:56PM 04/01./2013 I:IAR-26-2013 05:41 17: iii~ PAGE 6105%2919 SA~IUEL C STRETTON Fr omo DISCIPLINARY CCIUI-JSEL. Ei:5561a"1526 T0: 9161069152919 BEFORE T~!:S DISC:tPLINAA':C EIOAAD OF THE SUPREME COUR1 OF PENNSYLV~IA OFFlCE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, PetitiC".mer No, S IlB v. J~t~y. 201~ Reg. No, 208824 JOSEP!i D. LENTO, !1.espon<:ient AF~!DAVIT Respondent, (Philadelphia) UNDER RULE 2l5(d), Fa.R.D.?, Joseph 0, Lento, he;:oeby states thae he consents to the imposition of a one-year sus:l?ension, to be followed by one yeax- of pl:'obat.ion with a practi.ce monitor, subject to the oond~tions o~tline<:i in ,, 22~23 of the Joint Petition, and ful:'ther states that1 1. His consent ie freely a.nd voluntal:'ily rendered; he is not being s~bjectlild to coercion or du;J;"esst he hi fully aware of the implioations of eul;lmitting the consent; and he has consulted with counsel in connection with the decision to consent to d.isc ¢ipUne; 2. H<il is a.ware that there ie presently pending a proceeding involving allegations that he has been guUty of misconduct as set forth in the Joint Petition; 3. He acknowledges that the material facts set forth in the Joint Petition are true; and 02/03 04/ ~1/ 2013 (.! 05: 41 5105%2919 I ¢IRR~<::o-2013 n:lilkl r~om:DISCIPLIN~Y ClJUNSEL 215"5604528 4. :a.e prosec1.1tect knows in PAGE SAMUEL C STRETTON the t:.ha t H pending To:916105962919 the charges successfully defend against them. Jose n p, Reep ndent sworn ~o and subscribed before me this i;lay-d£ L No I ,9f ~ento, Page:22'22 con t:. :l.nued to l:>e p:t·oc.:teeding, Es~uire he could 03/03 not

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.