No. 1968 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1968 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 107 DB 2013 v. Attorney Registration No. 309496 JEFFREY AARON BLAKER, Respondent (Philadelphia) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2013, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated September 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 Jeffrey Aaron Blaker is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year retroactive to September 18, 2013, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. A True Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 11/15/2013 ~}U;t4J Attest: Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLII\IARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner No. 1968 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 107 DB 2013 v. Attorney Registration No. 309496 JEFFREY AARON BLAKER 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 Stephan K. Todd, Douglas W. Leonard and Lawrence M. Kelly, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter on August 5, 2013. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a one year suspension retroactive to the date of his temporary 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. Stephan K. Todd, Panel Chair The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Date: BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA JD7 D62DI3 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner ODC File No. C1-12-505 v. Atty. Reg. No. 309496 JEFFREY AARON BLAKER, Respondent (Philadelphia) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Petitioner, J. Killion, Richard Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Esquire, Hernandez, Chief Disciplinary Esquire, Respondent, Jeffrey Michael B. Pullano, Aaron Esquire, Counsel, Disciplinary Blaker, who file by Paul is and Counsel, and represented by this Joint Petition In Support of Discipline On Consent Under Rule 215 (d) Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary by of the Enforcement and respectfully represent that: 1. June 14, The Respondent, Jeffrey Aaron Blaker, was born on 1983, Commonwealth Respondent was and was of admitted Pennsylvania to on assigned Attorney practice law in the November 15, 2010. No. 309496 Registration and is currently registered as ¢active. ¢ 2. According to attorney registration records, Respondent's public access address is 111 North 9th Street, Unit 708, Philadelphia, PA 19107. f ~lED AUG - 5 2013 Office of the Secretary The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court ol Pennsylvania 3. Respondent recommendation has for consent Petitioner will also Pennsylvania Joint a agreed be to enter discipline. filing with Petition to the into a joint Respondent and Supreme Court of Temporarily Suspend an Attorney. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ADMISSIONS AND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VIOLATED 4. Sometime in August 2001, Respondent commenced his first year of undergraduate studies at Villanova University ("Villanova"). 5. Sometime during the fall of 2001, Respondent received a citation for possession of alcohol. a. A Resident Assistant possession of observed Respondent alcoholic an beverage in in another student's dormitory room. 6. The Respondent by Dean of placing Students him on at Villanova disciplined probation for a spring 2002, period of time. 7. Sometime during the of Respondent received a second citation for possession of alcohol. a. A Resident Respondent beverage Assistant possession in in again of another room. 2 observed an alcoholic student's dormitory 8. The Dean of Students at Villanova disciplined Respondent by again placing him on probation for a period of time. On September 21, 9. in Tredyffrin Villanova, Township, while attending a 2002, outside Respondent received On November 6, 2002, the a campus citation party boundary for of Underage Drinking. 10. Respondent appeared before a Magisterial District Judge and pled guilty to the summary offense of Disorderly Conduct. a. Respondent paid court costs in the amount of $107.50 and performed 15 hours of community service. 11. Lower On October Merion Villanova, 6, 2002, Township, Respondent while attending outside received the a campus citation a party in boundary for of Underage Drinking. a. The the Lower Merion Police administration at Department Villanova advised that Respondent was cited for Underage Drinking. 12. On November 20, 2002, Respondent appeared before a Magisterial District Judge and pled guilty to the summary offense of Underage Drinking. 3 a. Respondent paid a $50.00 fine and $107.50 in court costs. 13. citation On for October 31, 2003, Trespassing of received Respondent Real Property for a having trespassed on the football field at Radnor High School. 14. On November 19, 2003, Respondent appeared before a Magisterial District Judge and pled guilty to the offense of Trespassing of Real Property. a. Respondent paid a $50.00 fine and $117.00 in court costs. 15. Beach On July 5, Island,· New 2004, Jersey, while he Respondent received two was in citations, Lo.ng one for Acting in an Offensive Manner and the second for Riding a Bicycle on a Township Sidewalk. 16. On August 3, 2004, Respondent appeared before the Municipal Court of the Township of Long Beach, pled guilty to both citations, and paid for both citations a total fine of $275.00 and court costs of $50.00. 17. On May Philadelphia County, Theft 2009, 8' of Services, he the while received three second for Respondent citations, was in one for Public Drunkenness, and the third for Public Drunkenness and Similar Misconduct. 18. On May 11, 2009, Respondent pled no contest to the Theft of Services and Public Drunkenness citations. 4 a. Respondent paid court costs in the amount of $148.50 and performed 24 hours of community service. 19. On February 7, Application for Admission 2007, Respondent completed ("the Application") an to Villanova School of Law. a. Respondent certified that the information he provided in the Application was complete and accurate. b. Respondent that he provide acknowledged had all a in the "continuing information that Application obligation would to change [his] answer to questions 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 to the Academic Dean throughout [his] time at Villanova Law School .... " 20. In the Application, Respondent checked off "Yes" in response to Question 14, which inquired if he had "ever been subjected to disciplinary action suspension, or dismissal) any reason? (including probation, by any academic institution for Disclosure is to be made even if disciplinary action has been expunged from the records of the academic institution." 21. In the Application, Respondent checked off "Yes" in response to Question 16, which inquired if he had "ever 5 been arrested, taken into custody, charged, cited, accused, given written warning, prosecuted, or convicted formally or informally for any crime by a law enforcement agency for an offense other than a minor traffic violation? (You must Disclosure is to include any instance of drunk driving.) be made even if the record has been dismissed or expunged unless to do so would violate a clearly applicable law." 22. Respondent statement that incidents that he attached had occurred to typed, which while he Application the was disclosed on the a the two grounds of Villanova in the Fall of 2001 and the Spring of 2002 and the October 6, 2002 arrest in Lower Merion Township that resulted in his pleading guilty to the offense of Underage Drinking. 23. the Respondent failed to disclose on the Application arrests, citations, and dispositions of the that occurred on September 21, July 5, 2004, which had not 2002, October 31, been previously incidents 2003, reported and to Villanova by local law enforcement authorities. 24. Respondent disclosed on the Application the incidents that occurred in the Fall of 2001 and the Spring of 2002 at Villanova, Lower Merion Township, and the October 6, 2002 arrest in because he believed that Villanova School of Law had prior notice of these incidents. 6 In 25. Villanova 2007, August School of Law, Respondent and he matriculated graduated with a at Juris Doctorate Degree in May 2010. 26. Y. In March 2010, Gotanda, Respondent sent an e-mail to John Associate of for Dean citations, and dispositions of the incidents that occurred May 8, October 31, 2003, the arrests, July 5, 2004, and 2009. 27. By acknowledged him, disclosed at School 2002, which Affairs Villanova on September 21, Law, Academic inter certainty letter receipt alia, that dated of that March 22, Respondent's Dean [Respondent] Gotanda would 2010, Dean Gotanda e-mail and informed could have not been "say with admitted to Villanova had [Respondent] disclosed these incidents.u 28. Dean Gotanda's letter notified Respondent that Villanova School of Law would accept Respondent's amendment to the Application if he complied with several conditions: perform 25 hours of community discuss service; the incidents with Dean Margo Matt to determine if Respondent's pattern of behavior representative discuss the from raises any Lawyers implications of concerns; Concerned the and for incidents and contact Lawyers the a to impact they might have on Respondent's bar admission. a. Respondent complied with the 7 conditions set forth in Dean Gotanda's letter. 29. filed On with April the 11, Respondent 2010, Pennsylvania Board of electronically Law Examiners an Application for Permission to Sit for the Pennsylvania Bar Examination ("the and for Pennsylvania Character and Fitness Bar Application") , Determination therein applying to sit for the July 2010 bar examination. a. Respondent verified fact by made him Application were that in true the the statements Pennsylvania and correct of Bar and that they were made subject to the penal ties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 30. In the Pennsylvania Bar Application, Respondent provided the following answer in response to the question under the heading "DOCUMENTS-ALTERED or FALSIFIED," which inquired if he had "ever altered or falsified any official or unofficial application or document examination or copy result thereof letter, (e.g.' bar recommendation letter, transcript, report, law school application, etc.)": When I was applying to Villanova Law School in 2007, I made the mistake of neglecting to include several citations on my application. This oversight was unintentional, and I put off updating my application to the 8 point where I completely forgot that it needed to be done. The final update was made to Villanova Law School during the first week of March 2010. In a letter from the Dean of Academic Affairs, Villanova accepted my late disclosures under the condition that I perform community service, and meet with Dean Margo Matt on the Villanova Campus. I have enclosed the letter from the Dean of Academic Affairs with my application materials. 31. the in The aforementioned answer Pennsylvania that filing at the with Bar Application time he decided 2004, misrepresentation, Application for School Respondent had incidents that not occurred on September 21, 5, was ·a provided on had completed the Villanova consciously Respondent to of Law, disclose 2002, the October 31, 2003, because he believed that Villanova and July School of Law would not discover that he had omitted those incidents on the Application. 32. the On or about March 29, State of Committee") a New Jersey Certified Jersey Bar Application"), 2010, Committee Statement of Respondent filed with on Character Character therein applying to ("the ("the sit for New the July 2010 bar examination. 33. testified On at October a 5, hearing 2011' before 9 Respondent the appeared Committee, which and was charged with determining whether he had the good character and present fitness to practice law in New Jersey. 34. At the hearing, Respondent testified as follows in response to questions posed to him: The next question I have for you again looking at that last page of C12, the title of it is legal incident and there's number 1 and you refer to the 2002 incident with the Lower Merion Police for underage drinking. Why did you report that incident and not report the Tredyffrin Township, the Radnor Township, and the Long Beach, New Jersey incidents? A. I think there were several reasons. First of all, I completely failed in recognizing the importance of disclosing those matters on my application to law school. There wasn't candor there. I think at the time it was winter 2007 and I was trying to get my law school applications out as quickly as possible and I overlooked I not only overlooked it but I don't remember what my exact thought process was but I mean these were the ones that Villanova was aware of so these were the ones that I was going to disclose. And I wish I could remember whether for other law schools that I applied to whether other incidents were disclosed and perhaps I thought I could get away with it with Villanova but I just completely failed in recognizing the importance of making all of the disclosures for all of the incidents that occurred prior to 2007. (October 5, 2011 transcript of hearing before the Committee, p. 50) Q. **** Q. You made the decision not to tell 10 it up front. You testified today that it was a conscious decision when you were filling out your law school applications to not disclose everything, only the things that Villanova knew about to disclose, right? A. Yes. Q. Because you knew you could get away with it, right? You were hoping to get away with it? A. Essentially. (Id. at pp. 60-61) 35. The misrepresentation set forth in paragraphs 30 and 31 was material to the Pennsylvania Bar Application. 36. and 31 The misrepresentation set forth in paragraphs 30 was material to Respondent's qualifications to practice law and to the inquiry into his qualifications to be conducted by the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners. 37. 36 By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 4 through above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct and Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement: a. RPC 8 .1 (a), which for admission to states the that bar, or an applicant a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact; b. RPC 8.1 (b), which 11 states that an applicant for admission to connection with a the bar, or a lawyer in bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct person a to misapprehension have arisen in known the matter, the by or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an disciplinary authority, Rule not does admissions that except require or this disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6; c. RPC 8. 4 (c), professional engage in which states misconduct conduct that for involving is lawyer a it to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; d. RPC 8.4(d), professional which that states misconduct for is lawyer a it to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and e. 203(b)(6), Pa.R.D.E. ground for discipline misrepresentation failing to which of disclose 12 states shall fact a or be that a making a deliberately material fact in connection with an application submitted under the Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rules. SPECIFIC JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE 38. the Petitioner and Respondent appropriate discipline jointly recommend that for Respondent's admitted misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year, retroactive for temporary suspension that be entered upon consideration the and the date of the Order the parties Supreme grant to of Court the anticipate will of Pennsylvania's Joint Petition to Temporarily Suspend an Attorney. 39. being Respondent imposed Pennsylvania. executed stating upon he consents him Attached Affidavit that hereby by to consents the this required that Supreme Petition by to to Rule is discipline Court of Respondent's Pa.R.D.E., recommended the 2l5(d), discipline, including the mandatory acknowledgements contained in Rule 215(d) (1) through (4), Pa.R.D.E. 40. In support recommendation, of Petitioner and Respondent's joint it is respectfully submitted that there are several mitigating circumstances: a. Respondent misconduct of has and Professional 13 admitted violating Conduct the and engaging charged in Rules Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement; b. Respondent as is has cooperated evidenced by herein and his with Petitioner, Respondent's consent to admissions receiving a suspension of one year; c. Respondent has no record of discipline; d. Respondent is remorseful for his misconduct and understands he should be disciplined, is evidenced by his consent to as receiving a suspension of one year; and Respondent, e. through counsel, self-reported his misconduct to Petitioner. 41. Precedent suggests that Respondent's misconduct warrants a suspension of one year. A suspension of one year and one day was imposed oh an attorney who intentionally failed to disclose on his Bar Applications to Pennsylvania and another state that he had a prior arrest police officer. D. &C. 4th 512 Tuerk's lack wrongdoing. for alleged In re Robert P. (1996). Id. the of at sexual Tuerk, No. Aggravating remorse and factors forgot about his arrest. Id. at 515. 14 6 DB 94, were unwillingness Respondent 518-519. solicitation of a 33 Pa. Respondent to admit Tuerk claimed he A suspension of one year was imposed in the case of In re Ronda B. Gol.d£ein, Respondent ( 1995) . No.8 Goldfein was Pa. 29 94, DB D.&C.4th arrested while a 315 third- year law student on charges of possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence; the charge possession of a controlled substance was nolle prossed. at Respondent 317. Bar Applications arrest the to Goldfein disclosed her New York, States of Florida, of Id. in her and Delaware; however, she failed to disclose her arrest in her Bar Applications Pennsylvania. to at Id. the States of Respondent 318-19. Jersey and Goldfein also New failed to disclose in her Bar Applications to the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania that she had failed the Florida and Delaware bar examinations and had twice failed the New York bar examination. Id. at Lastly, 319. Respondent Goldfein failed to list her complete employment history in her Pennsylvania Bar Application. Id. at 320. Respondent Goldfein misrepresentations Applications prior arrest to attributed her omissions and in the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Bar carelessness with the and passage to having of time. forgotten her I d. The Disciplinary Board concluded that Respondent Goldfein acted carelessly and lacked the "intent to deceive the board of law examiners," even though the failure to list her arrest 15 "must be viewed mitigation, with skepticism." Respondent expressed discipline, Goldfein remorse 322. In record of misconduct, had for at and Id. no her presented favorable character evidence. Id. at 320-321. A suspension of one year was also imposed in Office of Discip~inary Counse~ (Three-Member Order Board 9/19/07). arrests that Pennsylvania v. Edward Panel and New in No. King, Recommendation Respondent occurred John King failed Wildwood, 91 7/24/07) (S.t;:t. to New DB 2007 report Jersey two on his An August Jersey Bar Applications. 21, 1993 arrest on a trespassing charge was disposed of two days after the arrest when Respondent King agreed to pay a $100.00 fine and court costs. A May 29, 1994 arrest on a simple assault charge was dismissed on June 21, arrests occurred when Respondent King 1994. was Respondent King also failed to report on his Both eighteen. Pennsylvania Bar Application that he had provided false information on his law school application to Villanova University School of Law by failing to report the two arrests. Respondent King claimed that he did not disclose his May 1994 arrest because dismissed and believed that ''arrest" due fingerprinting; he case his lack photographing; bail against 16 him detention of: to the the was Miranda or bond; had been not an warnings; arraignment; or ihdictment. discipline Mitigating to impose were record of discipline; factors Respondent in determining King's: the lack of a remorse; cooperation; and decision to self-report his misconduct. Respondent's Respondent disclose misconduct an Furthermore, Respondent did on arrest as because Tuerk's not Pennsylvania unlike expressed remorse the is Respondent serious not Bar Tuerk, as fail to Application. Respondent has for his misconduct and acknowledged his wrongdoing. On the Pennsylvania Bar properly disclosed each incident citation and the three Application, Respondent for received incidents which he he Application to Villanova Law School. omitted from However, a the Respondent misrepresented to the Pennsylvania Board of Bar Examiners his state of Application, Respondent mind which claims when completing misconduct that Law the warrants suspension. a the misrepresentation was by embarrassment. A suspension of one year, Gold£ein and King, will impress upon Respondent, bar applicants, the necessity honesty when completing the Respondent's mitigation that presented by of evidence, Respondent 17 which King, and prompted as imposed in complete Pennsylvania School and other candor and Bar Application. is identical similar to to that offered by Respondent Goldfein (no record and remorse), supports a suspension of one year. 4 2. Petitioner and Respondent suspension is misconduct appropriate after submit that a one-year discipline for precedent and considering Respondent's weighing the mitigating factors. WHEREFORE, Petitioner and respectfully Respondent request that: a. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E., the Disciplinary above Rule Board review Petition On recommendation Consent with the 215(g), and three-member Joint Discipline 215(e) panel and In of the approve the Support Of file its and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in which it is recommended that the Supreme Court enter an Order: (i) suspending Respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year to run retroactive to the date of Respondent's temporary suspension; and (ii) directing Respondent to comply with all of the provisions Pa.R.D.E. 18 of Rule 217, b. Pursuant panel to of Rule to 1 the Disciplinary the Respondent 215(i) pay the three-member Board necessary order expenses incurred in the investigation of this matter as a condition to the grant of the Petition and that all expenses be paid by Respondent before the imposition of discipline Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ....---..-------.~ ~/ ) By.-<"'~-·~::_...~-===.::>/'/ .. Richard Hernandez Disciplinary Counsel 19 under BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner ODC File No. Cl-12-505 v. Atty. Reg. No. 309496 JEFFREY AARON BLAKER, Respondent (Philadelphia) VERIFICATION The Petition 215(d), statements In Support contained of in Discipline the on foregoing Consent Joint Under Rule Pa.R.D.E., are true and correct to the best of our knowledge or information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §1904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. -;1~6/o~a 13 .c: Date Richard Hernandez Disciplinary Counsel Date Jeffrey ~~ te c_~ulano, Respondent's Counsel Esquire BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner ODC File No. Cl-12-505 v. Atty. Reg. No. 309496 JEFFREY AARON BLAKER, Respondent (Philadelphia) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Respondent, he consents practice to of law Jeffrey Aaron Blaker, the for imposition a recommended by Petitioner, and Respondent in the period of a of hereby states suspension one year that from as the jointly Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Joint Petition In Support Of Discipline On Consent, and further states that: 1. he is His not consent being is freely subjected to and voluntarily coercion or rendered; duress; he is fully aware of the implications of submitting the consent; and he has consulted with Michael B. Pullano, Esquire, and Kimberly A. Brown, Esquire, in connection with the decision to consent to discipline; 2. He is aware that there is presently pending an investigation into allegations that he has been guilty 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 4. He consents because he knows that if charges predicated upon the matter under investigation were filed, he could not successfully defend against them. Jeffre/ Aaron Blaker, Esquire Respondent Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of -=c~=---,;~-==----' 2013. Notary Publlc NOTMIAI. SEAL UNDAMATTOX NOII(y Public Pl'tiLADELPHIA CITY. PHilADfLPHIII CltT'f Mv Commission Ellfllres Mar, 19,2015

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.