No. 1971, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. DENNIS G. YOUNG, JR., Respondent No. 1971 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 44 DB 2013 and File Nos. C1-13-356 and C1-13-534 Attorney Registration No. 89682 (Philadelphia) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 251h day of September, 2013, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated August 9, 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 G. Young, Jr., is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of thirty months and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. A True Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 9/25/L013 Attest: ~- f&;,!ILJ Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. No. 44 DB 2013 & File Nos. C1-13-356 & C1-13-534 Attorney Registration No. 89682 DENNIS G. YOUNG, JR. 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 R. Burke Mclemore, Jr., Tracey McCants Lewis and David E. Schwager, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Suppo1i of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter on July 25, 2013. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a 30 month suspension and recommends to the Supreme Cou1i 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 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 44 DB 2013; and ODC File Nos. C1-13-356 & C1-13-534 v. Atty. Reg. No. 89682 DENNIS G. YOUNG, JR., 'Respondent (Philadelphia) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC"), by Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and Harriet R. Brumberg, Disciplinary Counsel, Young, Jr. , Honig, Esquire, Discipline Esquire, on Disciplinary and Respondent, by Respondent's file this Consent Joint Petition under Enforcement counsel, Dennis G. William J. In Support of Rule of Pennsylvania ("Pa.R.D.E.") 215(d), and respectfully represent that: BACKGROUND I . 1. Petitioner, PA Judicial Center, Harrisburg, PA Pa.R.D.E. matters admitted 207, Suite 2700, 17106-2485, 601 is Commonwealth Avenue, invested pursuant to with the power and duty to investigate all involving to whose principal office is located at alleged practice law misconduct in the of an attorney Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary procfetk,j: I) JUL 2 5 Z013 Office of the Secretary The Disciplinary Board of the Suprem0 Court of Pennsylvania brought in accordance with the various provisions of said Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. 2. Respondent, Dennis G. Young, Jr., was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth on November 12, 2002. Respondent maintains an office of law at 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 700, 3. for the practice Philadelphia, PA 19102. 4. subject· Pursuant to to the Pa.R.D.E. 201(a) (1), disciplinary Respondent jurisdiction of is the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. II. FACTUAL ADMISSIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 5. Respondent specifically admits to the truth of the factual allegations and conclusions of law contained in paragraphs 1 through 177, infra. A. BACKGROUND 6. From September 2009 until September 24, 2010, Respondent was employed by the law firm of Larry Pitt Associates, "Pitt"), an P.C. (hereinafter as & associate attorney in the Personal Injury Department. 7. Respondent From approximately October 2010 to December 2010, was employed by Damon K. Roberts & (hereinafter "Roberts") as an associate attorney. 2 Associates 8. From December 6, 2010 through August 22, 2011, Respondent was employed as a full-time attorney by the law firm of Bowman Kavulich, & Ltd., now doing business as Bowman & Partners, LLP (hereinafter "Bowman"). 9. From September 16, 2011 to September 23, 2011, Respondent had a fee sharing agreement with Bowman. B. IMPROPER SOLICITATION CHARGE I: 10. EUNICE ISAAC On or about March 2, involved in a slip and fall 2008, Ms. accident at Eunice Isaac was the Old Country Buffet. 11. On March 2, 2008, Ms. Isaac signed a contingent fee agreement with Pitt. 12. On October 27, 2009, George D. Walker, Esquire, an attorney with Pitt, filed a civil complaint on behalf of Ms. Isaac against Old Country Buffet in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County; the case was docketed at No. 4129, October Term (2009). 13. As an associate with Pitt, Respondent was represented Ms. which the assigned to handle Ms. Isaac's case. 14. Isaac at On August an arbitrators 12, arbitration found for 2010, Respondent hearing, plaintiff 3 after and against time defendant in the amount of $20,000, after net deduction for plaintiff's negligence. 15. On September 23, 2010, Ms. Isaac signed a release with Old Country Buffet to settle her case. 16. On terminated September Respondent's shortly 2 010' 27, employment Pitt after with firm, the Respondent went, uninvited, to Ms. Isaac's house. a. Mr. Gregory Giddens, Ms. Isaac's nephew, was also at Ms. Isaac's house. 17. While at Ms. Isaac's house, Respondent: a. told Ms. Isaac that "I got something to tell you about your case"; b. instructed Ms. to receive Isaac her that settlement in order for her funds, she must sign the papers that Respondent had prepared for her signature; c. failed signing to explain Respondent's to Ms. papers, Isaac that by she ·would be terminating Pitt's representation; d. failed to explain to Ms. Isaac that her case had been settled on September 23, 2010, and there were no pending matters that required Respondent's representation; 4 deceived e. Ms . terminating Isaac into Pitt's signing papers and representation retaining Respondent to represent her; and f. promised Ms. Isaac that "I'll bring you that money in two weeks." 18. On October 19, 2010, Phyllis D. Haskin, Esquire, an attorney with Pitt, filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement of the arbitration award in favor of Ms. Isaac and Pitt. 19. advised By letter dated Respondent that representation, November she 12, terminated requested Respondent contact with her, 2010, Ms. Isaac Respondent's to cease all further and instructed Respondent to "Just leave [her] cash alone." a. 20. Respondent received Ms. Isaac's letter. From time to attempted to contact Ms. time thereafter, Respondent Isaac at various hours of the day and evening. 21. Gary By Order dated November 18, DiVito Settlement granted and $18,000 with a Ms. ordered Haskin's defendant check payable to 2010, the Honorable Petition to to remit "Eunice Enforce payment Isaac of and Larry Pitt & Associates only." 22. On November 19, 2010, Respondent appearance as co-counsel on behalf of Ms. Isaac. 5 entered his 23. for On November 22, Reconsideration of 2010, Judge Respondent DiVito's filed a Motion November 18, 2010 Order. 24. Order his vacated By dated December Order of 2010, Judge DiVito 18, November 1, 2010, and ordered defendant to make payment of $18,000 by check payable to "Eunice Isaac and Damon K. Roberts & Associates." 25. for On December 8, reconsideration Order; of on January 7, 2010, Judge 2011, Ms. Haskin filed DiVito's Respondent a December motion 1, 2010 filed an answer in opposition. 26. On December 20, 2010, Old Country Buffet filed a Petition for Payment into Court; on February 8, 2011, Judge DiVito granted Old Country Buffet's that petition Pitt and/or Roberts shall pay $1,000 and ordered to Old Country Buffet as partial reimbursement of its costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection with the attorneys' fee dispute. 27. By Order ordered Respondent ten days, dated and Pitt March 9, 2011, to provide the Judge DiVito Court, within "with copies of their fee and retainer agreements together with an itemized list of their fees and costs." 28. On March 11, 2011, Ms. that provided: 6 Isaac signed an affidavit Mr. Young advised me that get the to sign in order to settlement money I a form I represent me. Young was Pitt & so would have that he could believed that Dennis acting on Associates behalf so I of Larry signed the paperwork. 29. Ms. Respondent engaged in deceitful conduct in that Isaac was not compelled to retain Respondent in order for her to receive her settlement funds. 30. By Order dated March 28, 2011, Judge DiVito ordered Respondent and Mr. Pitt to appear for a hearing on April 12, 2011, and directed Pitt Mr. to ensure the presence of Ms. Isaac. 31. On April 12, 2011, a hearing was held before Judge DiVito, during which Ms. Isaac: a. testified that Mr. Pitt was her attorney when her case settled on September 23, (N. T. b. p. 11) ; stated that Mr. Pitt attorney when Respondent (N. T. 2010 p. 11) ; 7 was came "still" her to her house c. admonished that coming [her] to Respondent house handling [her] case" d. noted that she anything" Mr. no right Pitt was (N. T. p. 12) ; have never signed "should immediately" (N. T. have asked leave and [her] house to accused when "should [Respondent] e. "had p. 13) ; Respondent calling of her and harassing her on the telephone (N.T. p. 16); f. reiterated that she Respondent gave her, "signed "[b]ut was representing [her]" g. represented that attention to" sign the still paper" Mr. Pitt (N.T. p. 23); she "didn't pay any the papers Respondent had her terminating Mr. Pitt's representation (N.T. p. 28); and h. explained that Pitt had been her attorney since December 2002 (N.T. pp. 30, 31). 32. At the hearing, Mr. Giddens testified that: a. Ms. Isaac "didn't understand what really was going on" b. Ms. (N.T. p. 43); Isaac "working for thought Pitt 43); and 8 that & Respondent Associates" (N. T. was p. c. he recalled Respondent stating that he was "allowed to finish up what [Respondent] had going under Larry Pitt" and that Respondent was "finishing up for Larry Pitt" (N.T. p. 43) . 33. By Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 2011, Judge DiVito found that: a. Ms. Isaac said Respondent upon the "into belief was she signing that her case for Mr. documents 'he Pitt' deceived was by unread, finishing up and the promise that 'he would get her her money in two weeks'"; b. on cross-examination, Ms. Isaac unshaken and adamant that Mr. remained Pitt was her lawyer; c. Ms. Isaac "made it clear nothing to do with Mr. that she wanted Young and her anger was patent'1 i d. Ms. Isaac was "most credible"; and e. Larry Pitt, Esquire, was Ms. Isaac's "rightful attorney." 34. ordered By Order that the dated April Prothonotary 13, issue 2011, Judge an DiVito $18,000 payable to "Larry Pitt & Associates and Eunice Isaacs." 9 check 35. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 10 through 34 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. RPC 7. 3 (b) (2) , which states that a lawyer may contact, or send a written communication to, a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment unless the person has made known to the lawyer a desire not to receive from communications the lawyer; b. RPC which 7. 3 (b) (3), states that a lawyer may contact, or send a written communication to, a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment unless the communication involves coercion, duress, or harassment; c. RPC 8.4(c), professional engage in which states misconduct conduct for it is lawyer to that a dishonesty, involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and d. RPC 8.4(d), professional which states misconduct for that a it lawyer is to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 10 CHARGE II: 36. On January 27, HENRY POINDEXTER 2009, Mr. Henry Poindexter signed a contingency fee agreement with Pitt to handle his cause of action arising out of his January 23, 2009 personal injury accident. 37. Respondent was assigned handle to Mr. Poindexter's case. 38. Mr. On or about October 1, 2010, Poindexter about his personal Respondent met with injury matter, during which time Respondent: a. stated falsely that Pitt was going out of business; b. misled Mr. Poindexter Poindexter had no to believe choice but that to Mr. retain Respondent to represent him in his personal injury matter; c. advised Mr. Poindexter that Respondent thirteen other employees had left and Pitt and joined Roberts; d. misrepresented his office that to Pitt staff; 11 Roberts was renovating accommodate the additional informed e. would Poindexter Mr. settle his that accident case Respondent within one month; and deceived f. Mr. Poindexter to believe that Respondent had received his file from Pitt. 39. Based Poindexter on sent representation Respondent's a letter to and dishonest Mr. requesting Pitt that conduct, terminating Mr. Pitt Mr. Pitt's forward Poindexter's entire file to Roberts. 40. Mr. By letter to Respondent dated November 8, Poindexter terminated Respondent's 2010, representation, explained that he wished to continue to be represented by Pitt, and requested that Respondent's "harassment end at once." 41. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 36 through 40 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. RPC 7. 3 (b) (3) , which states that a lawyer may contact, or send a written communication to, a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment unless the communication involves coercion, duress, or harassment; and b. RPC 8.4(c), professional which states misconduct 12 for that a it is lawyer to in engage conduct dishonesty, involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. CHARGE III: 42. THOMAS JOHNSON On January 22, ·2008, Mr. Thomas Johnson retained Pitt to represent him in a personal injury matter arising from his January 6, 2008 automobile accident. 43. Respondent was assigned to handle Mr. Johnson's legal matter. 44. In late Respondent sent Mr. Respondent had left September Johnson Pitt early or a and letter informing providing 2010, October him that Respondent's new contact information. 45. After Respondent sent Mr. Johnson the above- described letter, Respondent repeatedly called Mr. Johnson. 46. Upon reaching Mr. Johnson on the telephone: a. Respondent explained that Respondent was no longer with Pitt; b. Respondent told Mr. have more a Respondent Johnson that positive because he outcome Respondent "would with" "knew people on the defense side of the case"; and c. Mr. Johnson advised Respondent that he wanted to think about leaving Pitt and would 13 call Respondent back if he wanted to retain Respondent's services. 47. Mr. Johnson never called Respondent back or advised Respondent that he wanted to retain Respondent as his attorney. a. Mr. Johnson thereby made known that he did not want to receive communications from Respondent. 48. attempted Respondent to repeatedly "pressure" him to called retain Johnson Mr. Respondent as and his attorney. 49. During Respondent's with Mr. Johnson, last telephone conversation Respondent engaged in harassing conduct, which caused Mr. Johnson to abruptly terminate the call and hang up the telephone. 50. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 42 through 49 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. RPC 7. 3 (b) (2) , which states that a lawyer may contact, or send a written communication to, a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment unless the person has made known to the lawyer a desire not to receive lawyer; and 14 communications from the b. RPC 7. 3 (b) (3) , which states that a lawyer may contact, or send a written communication to, a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment unless the communication involves coercion, duress, or harassment. C. CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE CHARGE IV: 51. On August MELISSA N. WALKER 13, 2007, Ms. Melissa N. Walker was involved in a slip and fall accident at Ammons Supermarket, LLC (Ammons) . 52. On August 15, 2007, Ms. Walker signed a Esquire, an contingent fee agreement with Pitt. 53. On July 27, attorney with Pitt, Ms. 2009, George D. filed a Walker, civil complaint on behalf of Walker against Ammons in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County; the case was docketed at No. 3408, July Term (2009) . 54. As an associate with Pitt, Respondent was assigned to handle Ms. Walker's case. 55. held On on Ms. March 24, Walker's 2010, case, an arbitration after which the hearing was arbitrators found for plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $17,500. 15 56. a On or before June 9, $16,250 settlement 2010, agreement Respondent negotiated with defendant in Ms. Walker's case. 57. By letter to Respondent dated June 9, 2010, Nancy J. Leddy, Esquire, counsel for Ammons: a. confirmed that settlement of Ms. Walker $16,250 to had fully accepted settle a her case; b. enclosed a General Release for Ms. Walker' s execution; c. enclosed Stipulation a to Withdraw the Appeal and an Order to Satisfy the Award of Arbitrators; and d. explained that signed release upon and her receipt enclosed of the documents, she would request a $16,250 settlement check. 58. By letter dated June 16, 2010, from Respondent to Ms. Walker, Respondent: a. enclosed the General Release in the amount of $16,250; and b. requested that Ms. Release and return Walker sign the General it in the stamped, self-addressed envelope. 16 enclosed,' 59. On June 23, 2010, Ms. Walker signed the General Release and had it notarized by Pitt's notary. 60. Respondent received the signed General Release from Ms. Walker. 61. On June 26, 2010, Respondent forwarded only the signature page of the General Release to Ms. Leddy. 62. Release, Respondent failed Stipulation to to forward the Withdraw entire General Appeal, an Order to Satisfy the Award of Arbitrators, and a W-9 to Ms. Leddy. 63. On Praecipe to July 14, 2010, forwarded Respondent Satisfy the Award of the Arbitrators the to Ms. Leddy. 64. having 2010' been advised the Honorable Sandra M. that On July 23, Ms. Walker's case Moss, had been settled, had Ms. Walker's case marked "discontinued" on the Prothonotary's docket and removed the case from the applicable list and inventory of pending cases. 65. and 24, all of On July 1, 22, and 30, August 24, September 4, 2010, Ms. Leddy requested that Respondent send her the documents she had previously forwarded to Respondent so that Ammons could issue a settlement check. 6 6. On September 2 7, 2 010, Respondent Walker, during which time Respondent: 17 met with Ms. a. advised Ms. Walker that Respondent was no there was longer employed at Pitt; b. misled Ms. Walker to believe that still outstanding legal work to do in order for her to receive her funds in the Ammons matter; and requested c. that instructing Pitt to Pitt representation Pitt's terminating write Walker Ms. to transfer Respondent's new employer, her Damon K. and file to Roberts & Associates. 67. By letter dated September 28, 2010, Ms. Walker advised Pitt that she retained Roberts to represent her and requested that Pitt forward her file to Roberts. 68. On Plaintiff's 27, October Petition to 2010, Enforce Ms. Haskins Settlement on filed behalf of counsel of Pitt, alleging, in pertinent part, that: a. at no time was Respondent ever record for Ms. Walker; b. on June employee 9, of 2010, Pitt, while Respondent Respondent was an settled Ms. signed the Walker's case for $16,250; c. on June 23, 2010, release; 18 Ms. Walker d. on June 26, forwarded Leddy, 2010, the Respondent signed Esquire, release counsel purportedly to for Nancy C. defendant Ammons; e. on July 14, 2010, Respondent forwarded the Order to Satisfy the Award of Arbitrators to the Court; f. on July 23, 2010, Judge Moss entered an order indicating that the case was settled; g. on September repeatedly 4 and requested 24, 2010, that Ms. Leddy Respondent send her the complete release; h. but for the fact timely and release to that Respondent properly Ms. forward Leddy, failed to the Ammons complete would issued the settlement check and Ms. have Walker would have had her funds; and i. the Court Ammons $16,250, to should remit enter payment, an Order in the against amount to Melissa Walker and Larry Pitt of & Associates. 69. the On November 11, 2010, Ammons filed a response to Petition to Enforce Settlement, alleging that it did not receive the entire signed release until September 30, 19 2010, after the dispute with Respondent On November 18, 2010, and Respondent Pitt had arisen. 70. filed an entry of appearance on behalf of Melissa Walker. 71. to the On January 20, Petition to 2011, Respondent filed a response Enforce alleging, Settlement, in pertinent part, that: a. on or about September 27, retained Respondent to 2010, Ms. represent Walker her in a slip and fall accident matter; b. Pitt did not forward the complete executed release to Ammons until September 30, 2010; c. "a contract of the is not offer is formed until received acceptance in writing. Uniform Commercial Code-Article 2."; d. since Ms. Walker was no longer represented by Pitt at the time that Pitt forwarded the release, "Pitt had no right or authority to settle this matter on behalf of Plaintiff"; and e. the Court $16,500 Kavulich should order settlement check [Respondent's Melissa Walker." 20 Ammons then to to issue ''Bowman employer] a & and 72. Respondent's pleading was frivolous, in that: a. Respondent knew that Ms. Walker had signed the release accepting the offer on June 23, 2010; b. Respondent discontinued Ms. 2010, after that knew the Walker's having Court had case on July 23, been advised that the matter had settled; and c. as a matter of quantum meruit contract law, Pitt was entitled to Pitt's legal fee. 73. Respondent's response to the Petition to Enforce had no substantial purpose other than to delay or burden a third person. 74. By Order dated January 21, 2011, Judge Moss granted, in part, Pitt's Petition to Enforce Settlement and ordered Ammons to make payment of $16,250: as soon as the two attorneys who claim to represent plaintiff settle their differences about who gets the fee and/or how much each attorney will get from the fee. Said attorneys must resolve their differences within 30 days. (underscoring in original) 75. Respondent did not resolve his differences with Pitt within 30 days. 76. On Petition to March Order 28, 2011, Defendant to 21 Pitt Make filed A Check Plaintiff's Payable to Larry Pitt & Associates and Melissa Walker Only; in pertinent part, the Petition: a. stated that months Ms. Walker's Respondent before" "case was left settled Pitt's firm (emphasis in original) ; b. explained that the cannot dispute be resolved without Court intervention; and c. requested that the Court enter an Order for Ammons to issue a $16,250 settlement check "payable to Melissa Walker and Larry Pitt & Associates only." 77. Respondent received Pitt's Petition. 78. Respondent did not file an answer to the Petition. 79. On alleging in April 15, pertinent 2011, part, Ammons that as filed a result having been forced to respond twice to the Ammons should be reimbursed $270 in an Answer, of Ammons same Petition, attorney's fees for preparation of a response. 80. By Order that Ammons make a dated May $16,250 4, 2011, Judge check payable to Moss ordered "Larry Pitt & Associates and Melissa Walker." 81. Respondent's litigation was a good faith basis in law or fact. 22 frivolous and lacked 82. Respondent's litigation was prejudicial to the administration of justice in that it expended the limited time and resources of the Philadelphia Court system. 83. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 51 through 82 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. RPC which 3 1' 0 states that a lawyer not bring or defend a proceeding, shall or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not faith frivolous, which argument includes for an a good extension, modification or reversal of existing law. lawyer for the proceeding, or proceeding that incarceration, the defendant the may proceeding as in a criminal respondent could to in result nevertheless so require A a in defend that every element of the case be established; b. RPC which 4.4(a), representing a states a have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, person, or 23 use lawyer delay, methods shall in client, use means that third that not or burden a of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person; c. RPC professional engage in states which 8.4(c), misconduct that for involving conduct is lawyer a it to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and d. RPC 8.4(d), professional states which misconduct that for a it is lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. CHARGE V: 84. On July 21, 2006, SHARON HALSELL-BROWN Ms. Sharon Halsell-Brown was involved in a slip and fall accident. 85. On or about July 21, 2006, Ms. Halsell-Brown signed a contingent fee agreement with Pitt. 86. On June 26, attorney with Pitt, Ms. Halsell-Brown 2008, filed a against Neil S. Kerzner, civil complaint defendants 2700 Esquire, an on behalf of North Broad Street, LLC (hereinafter N. Broad) and City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia) County; the in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia case was docketed at No. June Term Respondent was 4472, (2008). 87. As an associate with Pitt, assigned to handle Ms. Halsell-Brown's case. 24 88. On March 16, 2010, a panel of arbitrators entered an award: in Broad in favor of Ms. the amount of Halsell-Brown and against N. and $25,263.93; in favor of Philadelphia. 89. On or before August 31, 2010, Respondent settled Ms. Halsell-Brown's case for $14,500. 90. from By Richard Esquire, letter to Respondent W. counsel Yost, for Esquire, Broad, N. dated August and Timothy Messrs. confirmed that Respondent settled Ms. Yost 31, R. 2010, Chapin, and Chapin Halsell-Brown's case for $14,500. 91. By letter to Respondent dated September 14, 2010, Messrs. Yost and Chapin enclosed the General Release to be signed by Ms. Halsell-Brown and explained that upon receipt of the Release and a time-stamped Discontinue and End, Messrs. Order to Settle, Yost and Chapin would forward Respondent's check. 92. On September 27, 2010, Respondent met with Ms. Halsell-Brown, during which time Respondent: a. falsely stated that had Respondent voluntarily left Pitt; b. requested her that Ms. representation Halsell-Brown with Pitt terminate and retain Respondent's then-employer, Roberts; and 25 had c. Halsell-Brown Ms. execute a General Release of her claim for total consideration of $14,500, of which $13,000 was to be paid by N. Broad and $1,500 was to be paid by Philadelphia. 93. By letter dated Halsell-Brown to Pitt, she September 27, 2010, from Ms. Ms. Halsell-Brown advised Pitt that retained Roberts to represent her and requested that Pitt forward her file to Roberts. 94. Chapin, By hand-delivered letter from Respondent dated September 2 7, 2 010, to Mr. Respondent enclosed Ms. Halsell-Brown's executed General Release and requested that Mr. Chapin forward a $14, 50 0 check "made payable to Damon K. Roberts & Associates and Sharon Halsell." 95. 2010, By facsimile transmitted letter dated October 1, from Respondent to the Complex Litigation Center, Respondent wrote that a settlement had been reached in Ms. Halsell-Brown's matter and that her case should be removed from the trial list. 96. By Halsell-Brown letter to dated October Respondent, Respondent to cease: Ms. 1, 2010, Halsell-Brown from Ms. advised representing her; all legal action on her cases; and contacting her. 26 Respondent a. received Halsell-Brown's Ms. letter. 97. On October 1, duplicate General 2010, Ms. Halsell-Brown executed a Release consideration of $14,500, of her for claim total of which $13,000 was to be paid by N. Broad and $1,500 was to be paid by Philadelphia. By 98. Respondent letter dated and Mr. Pitt October via 2010, sent to Messrs. · Yost and 1, facsimile, Chapin wrote: a. advising Respondent that Ms. Halsell-Brown had signed two General Releases settling her case with N. Broad and Philadelphia; stating b. that purported to both be Respondent representing Ms. and Pitt Halsell- Brown; and c. explaining that no settlement check would be forwarded until the issue of representation had been resolved. 9 9. Esther By R. Order dated Sylvester October explained 4, that 2 010, the the Court Honorable had been advised that Ms. Halsell-Brown's case had been settled and ordered that the case be marked "discontinued" and removed from the inventory of pending cases. 27 100. On Plaintiff's October Petition 14, to 2010, Enforce Ms. filed Haskins Settlement, alleging, in pertinent part: a. at no time was Respondent ever Counsel of Record for Ms. Halsell-Brown; b. on August 31, Pitt 2010, employee, while Respondent was a Respondent settled Ms. Halsell-Brown's case for $14,500; c. on October 2010' 1' Ms. Hal sell-Brown signed a General Release settling her case for $13,000 from N. Broad and $1,500 from Philadelphia; d. by facsimile transmitted letter dated October 1, 2010, Ms. Halsell-Brown notified Respondent that she terminated Respondent's representation and wanted to proceed with Pitt; e. on October 12, 2010, Mr. Chapin advised Ms. Haskins that due to Respondent's dispute, "a Court Order was the only viable method to insure that" Ms. Halsell-Brown and the carrier were protected; and 28 f. the Court should enter an Order to make checks payable to Sharon Halsell-Brown and Larry Pitt & Associates only. 101. to Enforce Timely On November 19, 2010, Settlement Deliver and Settlement Respondent filed a Motion For Sanctions Funds, For alleging, Failure in to pertinent part, that: a. on September 2010, Ms. Halsell-Brown had retained Respondent "to represent her from a slip in a 27, pending action stemming and fall accident on July 20, 2006"; b. "[s]ubsequently, the parties reached an agreement to settle the matter for $14,500" (emphasis added); c. on September delivered 27, 2010, Respondent Halsell-Brown's Ms. hand- executed release to counsel for defendants; d. defendants have not forwarded the funds to complete the settlement despite the fact that there is a legally binding settlement agreement; e. the Court should "(1) compelling settlement Defendant check 29 issue to to an order issue Plaintiff's the counsel, 'Damon K. Roberts Associates & and Sharon Halsell-Brown'"; and f. the should Court issue an order that "(2) Defendant pay forthwith simple interest at the October rate 17, of 3.25% on $14,500 to 2010 the date deli very of the settlement funds, with attorney's fees and from of together costs in the amount of $402.68." 102. Respondent's Motion was false and misleading in that: a. the parties had Halsell-Brown's case before August 31, when Ms. agreed for to settle $14,500 on Ms. or 2010, which was prior to Halsell-Brown had retained Respondent; and b. there was no matter pending when Ms. Halsell-Brown had retained Respondent. 103. Respondent's motion to enforce settlement and request for sanctions was frivolous in that: a. there was no factual or legal basis for Respondent's claim of entitlement to any of Ms. Halsell-Brown's settlement funds as Respondent knew that Respondent had settled 30 Ms. Halsell-Brown's legal matter on or before August 31, 2010, when Respondent was an employee of Pitt; and b. Respondent had received prompt notice from Mr. Chapin that he was unable to authorize payment of the settlement funds because of Respondent's dispute with Pitt. 104. Respondent's response to the Petition to Enforce had no substantial purpose other than to delay or burden a third person. 105. By facsimile transmitted letter dated November 19, 2010, Mr. Chapin: a. advised Respondent copy of that he had received a Respondent's motion for sanctions filed against N. Broad; b. reminded Respondent that he had previously advised Respondent that his client's delay in distributing attributable to funds was [Respondent's] "solely dispute with Larry Pitt's office"; c. stated that Respondent's motion was "not only an unethical and impermissible use of the courts, but vengeful"; and 31 it is vindictive and d. warned Respondent that if his motion was not withdrawn, then Mr. Chapin would file a cross-motion for sanctions and request for attorneys' fees. 106. Respondent received Mr. Chapin's letter. 107. Respondent did not withdraw his Motion. 108. On December 7, Motion to Enforce Against Dennis G. 2010, Settlement Young, N. Broad filed Answers to and Esquire, Motion for alleging, Sanctions in pertinent part, that: a. upon information and belief, Respondent does not represent Ms. Halsell-Brown; b. at the time Ms. Halsell-Brown's case was settled, Respondent was employed by Pitt; c. during a September conversation, Mr. 27, Respondent 2010 telephone misrepresented to Chapin that Respondent had voluntarily left Pitt; d. on October 1, 2010, Respondent was advised that a settlement check would not be issued until Respondent resolved his dispute with Pitt; e. sanctions Respondent should be pursuant 32 issued to against Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1(b) claim because for Respondent an Respondent's presented improper legal purpose contentions are a and not warranted by fact or law; f. Mr. Chapin had advised Respondent, the telephone and in writing, both on to withdraw Respondent's motion for sanctions as it was not based in fact and law or he would have no choice but to seek sanctions Respondent for Respondent's against vexatious and harassing motion; g. the only reasonable Respondent's motion defendant to and explanation was to increase for "harass defense costs"; and h. the Court should grant for Sanctions and defendant's Motion Respondent and/or Mr. Roberts should reimburse defendants a total of $1,000, of which $500 was for responding to Respondent's frivolous Motion to Enforce Settlement and $500 for preparation and filing of its Motion for Sanctions. 109. Answer On December 8, 2010' Philadelphia in Opposition of Enforce Settlement 33 filed joining in an N. Broad's Motion and Memorandum of Law; Ms. Haskins filed an Answer in on December 8, Opposition of 2010, Motion to Enforce Settlement denying the allegations in Respondent's motion. By Order dated April llO. scheduled counsel to a hearing bring for any 11, 25, April 2011, 2011 settlement Judge and information Sylvester ordered pertinent all to the case. 1ll. On April 25, 2011, Judge Sylvester: a. issued an Order granting Enforce Settlement of defendants "Sharon to make Halsell-Brown Pitt's $14,500 and ordering checks and Motion to payable Larry Pitt to and Associates ¢; and issued an Order granting N. Broad's Cross- Motion b. and for Respondent for fees Sanctions to reimburse and costs $500 incurred to in ordering N. Broad filing its Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 123. 112. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 84 through 111 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. RPC 3. 1, which states that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert 34 an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, faith good A lawyer for argument modification or for reversal or proceeding of existing law. the could may proceeding in a to in a in result nevertheless as criminal respondent that incarceration, extension, an the defendant proceeding, the which includes a defend that require so every element of the case be established; b. RPC which 4.4(a), representing a client, use means that a a substantial no than delay, in lawyer shall not have purpose other or burden that states embarrass, to third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person; c. RPC which 8.4(c), professional engage in states misconduct conduct for that a involving it lawyer is to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and d. RPC which 8.4(d), professional states misconduct 35 for that a it lawyer is to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. D. MISHANDLING OF LAW FIRM FUNDS CHARGE VI: 113. a On August 23, 2010, Mr. Keith Jones, Sr., signed contingency Jones KEITH JONES fee agreement with Pitt to represent Mr. in his cause of action arising from his August 17, 2010 personal injury matter. 114. Respondent was assigned to handle Mr. Jones' personal injury matter. 115. By letter to Pitt dated September 28, 2010, Mr. Jones discharged Pitt and advised Pitt that he had retained Roberts to represent him. 116. On or before November 17, 2010, Respondent settled Mr. Jones' case for $25,000. 117. On November 17, 2010, Company of America (Nationwide) Nationwide Insurance issued a $25,000 check made payable to "Damon K. Roberts and Associates and Larry Pitt & Assoc PC and Keith Jones." 118. new office Nationwide addressed the check to Roberts at his address, Philadelphia, PA 119. Market "1600 Street, 25th $25,000 check Floor, 19103." Respondent received Nationwide. 36 the from 120. On or before November 29, 2010, Respondent signed Mr. Pitt's name to the back of the Nationwide check. 121. Respondent permission to knew sign Mr. he did Pitt's not name have to the Mr. Pitt's back of the $25,000 settlement check. 122. Respondent signed Mr. Pitt's name to the back of the $25,000 settlement check without Mr. Pitt's permission. 123. his Mr. Roberts deposited the settlement check into escrow Jones, account, distributed the funds owed to Mr. and took his attorney fee from the proceeds of the check. 124. Respondent failed to promptly notify Pitt of Respondent's receipt of fiduciary funds in which Pitt had a beneficial interest. 125. Respondent failed to deliver the settlement funds owed to Mr. Pitt. 126. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 113 through 125 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. RPC 1.15(d), which states that upon receiving Rule 1.15 Funds or property which are not Fiduciary Funds or property, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person, requirements consistent of 37 with applicable the law. Notification of receipt of Fiduciary Funds or property with to clients beneficial a or other interest persons in such Fiduciary Funds or property shall continue to be governed by the rules governing confidentiality 1 aw, the and procedure requirements notice applicable and of to the Fiduciary entrustment; b. RPC 1. 15 (e), which states that except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property, including but not limited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render regarding a full accounting property; Provided, however, delivery, accounting and that disclosure the the of Fiduciary Funds or property shall continue to be rules governed by the governing Fiduciary law, the administration, 38 procedure requirements and of confidentiality, notice and accounting applicable to the it is Fiduciary entrustment; c. RPC which 8.4(b), professional commit misconduct criminal a adversely states for act the on that a lawyer that reflects honesty, lawyer's trustworthiness or fitness as to a lawyer in other respects; and d. RPC which 8.4(c), professional engage in states misconduct conduct that for a involving it lawyer is to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. CHARGE VII: 127. On July 26, 2010, CLAIRE LANE Ms. Claire Lane signed a contingent fee agreement with Pitt to represent Ms. Lane in her cause of action arising from her July 21, 2010 personal injury matter. 128. Respondent was assigned to handle Ms. Lane's personal injury matter. 129. By letter to Pitt dated September 28, 2010, Ms. Lane discharged Pitt and advised Pitt that she had retained Roberts to represent her. 130. On or before February settled Ms. Lane's case for $18,750. 39 3, 2 011' Respondent On 131. Company February (Mann) 2011, Horace $18,750 check 3, issued an Mann made Insurance payable to "Bowman Kavulich, LTD and Larry Pitt & Associates, PC." 132. employer, Mann addressed the check to Respondent's thenBowman Kavulich, & Floor, Philadelphia, PA at Market "1600 Street, 25th 19103." 133. Respondent received the $18,750 check from Mann. 134. On or before February 17, Respondent 2011, signed Mr. Pitt's name to the back of the settlement check. 135. permission Respondent to sign knew Mr. he did Pitt's name not have to the Mr. Pitt's back of the $18,750 settlement check. 136. the Respondent signed Mr. Pitt's name to the back of settlement check without obtaining Mr. $18,750 Pitt's permission to do so. 137. Respondent failed to promptly notify Pitt of Respondent's receipt of fiduciary funds in which Pitt had a beneficial interest. 138. Respondent failed to deliver the settlement funds owed to Mr. Pitt. 139. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 127 through 138 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. RPC 1. 15 (d) ' which states that upon receiving Rule 1.15 Funds or property which 40 are not Fiduciary Funds or property, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or person, third consistent requirements of with applicable the law. Notification of receipt of Fiduciary Funds or property with to clients beneficial a or other interest persons in such Fiduciary Funds or property shall continue to be governed by the rules governing confidentiality law, the and procedure requirements notice applicable and of to the Fiduciary entrustment; b. RPC 1.15(e), which states that except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property, including but not limited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render regarding a full accounting property; Provided, however, delivery, accounting and 41 that disclosure the the of Fiduciary Funds or property shall continue to be governed by the rules governing Fiduciary notice law, the requirements administration, and accounting procedure and of confidentiality, applicable to the it is Fiduciary entrustment; c. RPC which 8. 4 (b) ' professional commit misconduct criminal a adversely states on that for act the a lawyer that reflects lawyer's trustworthiness or fitness as to honesty, a lawyer in other respects; and d. RPC which 8.4(c), professional engage in states misconduct conduct for that involving is lawyer a it to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. CHARGE VIII: 140. BOWMAN & KAVULICH/BOWMAN & PARTNERS, LLP On December 6, 2010, Respondent became a full- time employee of Bowman. 141. Pursuant to Respondent's employment agreement with Bowman: a. Bowman would pay salary of $50,000; 42 Respondent an annual b. Bowman would fee contingent the pay cases of costs the Respondent that litigated while at the firm; c. Respondent fees agreed generated to from divide all contingent the equally fee cases; and d. the firm would be entitled certain out- of -pocket costs to from recover the fees generated. 142. Respondent signed the Acceptance of Employment Offer on March 11, 2011. 143. While Respondent was employed by Bowman, Kerry Ann Soldiew met with Respondent and signed a contingent fee agreement for the firm to represent Ms. Soldiew in her cause of action arising from her personal injury matter. 144. On or before August 11, 2011, Respondent settled Ms. Soldiew's personal injury matter for $20,000. 145. On August executed release 2011, Respondent and W-9 Form to Candace Lobel Insurance Company, Inc. 146. 11, faxed at the T.H.E. (THE). By email dated August 12, to Ms. Lobel, Respondent requested: 43 2011, from Respondent a. confirmation executed that Ms. release Lobel and received the Form that W-9 Respondent had faxed the previous day; b. Ms. Lobel to have the settlement check made payable to "Law Offices of Dennis G. Young, Jr. and Kerryann Soldiew"; and c. Ms. Lobel to mail the settlement check to Respondent's home Rd. Berlin NJ 147. On August address of "33 Norcross 08009." 22, Bowman 2011' terminated Respondent's full-time employment with the firm. 148. After the termination, Respondent and Bowman were engaged in negotiations for a fee sharing arrangement whereby the firm would continue to provide Respondent with infrastructure and support for Respondent's personal injury cases. 149. lien After letters on the termination, contingent fee Bowman cases issued Respondent charging handled while employed at Bowman. 150. Esquire, After partner the at termination, Bowman, Michael repeatedly asked A. Bowman, Respondent whether Respondent had settled any contingent fee matters. 151. Respondent repeatedly advised Mr. Bowman Respondent had not settled any contingent fee matters. 44 that 152. On August 25, 2011, issued THE a $20,000 settlement check, made payable to Kerryann Soldiew and Law Offices of Dennis G. Young. 153. As instructed, Respondent mailed THE settlement check to Respondent's home address, Road, Berlin, NJ 154. settlement On 33 Norcross 08009. September check the and 7, 2011, Respondent distributed the funds cashed owed the to Ms. Soldiew. 155. Respondent failed to promptly notify Bowman of Respondent's receipt of fiduciary funds in which Bowman had a beneficial ·interest. 156. Respondent failed to deliver the settlement funds owed to Bowman. 157. Respondent Respondent had repeatedly not received advised any Mr. Bowman settlement that checks, including a settlement check in the Soldiew matter. 158. Respondent made intentional misstatements of material fact to Mr. Bowman. 159. discovered On or that about September Respondent had 19, 2011, received and Mr. Bowman cashed the from Mr. Soldiew settlement check. 160. By email Bowman to Respondent, dated September 19, 2011, Mr. Bowman wrote at 5:01 p.m. 45 that: "The [Soldiew settlement] check has been cashed. When were you going to tell me?" 161. Respondent By email to Mr. dated Bowman, September Respondent 2011, 19, wrote at from 9: 31 p.m. , that: "I moved to protect my interest" and "[N] ow that we have a fair and equitable working arrangement and written agreement in place, I'm sure there will no longer be a need for the gamesmanship." 162. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 140 through 161 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. 1.15(d), RPC which states that upon receiving Rule 1.15 Funds or property which are not Fiduciary Funds or property, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person, consistent requirements of with applicable the law. Notification of receipt of Fiduciary Funds or property with a to clients beneficial or other interest persons in such Fiduciary Funds or property shall continue to be governed by the rules governing confidentiality and law, the 46 requirements notice the Fiduciary entrustment; procedure and applicable of to b. RPC 1.15 (e), which states that except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, lawyer a shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property, including but not limited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render regarding a full accounting property; Provided, however, delivery, accounting and that disclosure the the of Fiduciary Funds or property shall continue to be governed by the rules governing Fiduciary notice law, requirements the administration, and procedure accounting and of confidentiality, applicable to the it is Fiduciary entrustment; c. RPC which 8.4(b), professional commit a adversely states misconduct criminal on the for act 47 a that lawyer's trustworthiness or fitness other respects; and that as a lawyer to reflects honesty, lawyer in d. RPC which 8.4(c), professional engage states misconduct in that for a lawyer involving conduct it is to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. E. NEGLECT CHARGE IX: 163. CALVIN CURTIS On January 19, 2011: a. Respondent met with Calvin Curtis regarding representing Mr. Curtis in his malpractice action against James medical Shepherd, M.D.; b. Respondent Personal provided Injury pursuant to entitled to Mr. Curtis Contingent which a Agreement, Respondent would be the amount of of 40% Fee with gross settlement; c. Mr. Curtis signed Respondent's contingent fee agreement; d. Mr. Curtis signed a release to enable Respondent to obtain copies of his medical records; and e. Respondent medical agreed records 48 to and review Mr. report back Curtis's to Mr. Curtis regarding the means by which Mr. Curtis could accomplish his objectives. 164. called In or around Respondent's May of office 2011, and Mr. spoke Curtis's to wife Respondent's assistant, Donna Zalas, during which time: a. Ms. Zalas informed Mrs. Curtis Respondent was planning to have that a meeting with a pharmaceutical company; b. Ms. Zalas contact said Mr. that and Respondent's Respondent would Curtis after Mrs. meeting the with pharmaceutical company; and c. Mrs. Curtis provide her requested that Respondent and her husband with written documentation as to the status of his case. 165. reasonable Thereafter, diligence Respondent and pursue failed Mr. to act Curtis's with medical malpractice action. 166. Respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Curtis in any way and keep him informed about the status of his malpractice matter. 167. On November 30, 2011: a. Mr. Curtis Kavulich, called the office of Bowman & where Respondent was employed at 49 the time Mr. Curtis signed the contingent fee agreement; b. the receptionist Respondent was informed Mr. no longer Curtis employed at that the firm; and the c. receptionist Respondent's gave telephone Mr. number of Curtis 609-617- 5576. 168. From time to time thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Curtis would call Respondent and leave a message requesting that Respondent provide them with information regarding the status of Mr. Curtis's case. 169. Respondent failed to return Mr. Curtis's telephone calls and comply with his reasonable requests for information. 170. By his conduct as in alleged paragraphs 163 through 169 above, Respondent violated the following rules: a. RPC 1. 3, which states that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; b. RPC 1. 4 (a) (2) , which states shall reasonably about the means consult by that with which a lawyer the client the objectives are to be accomplished; 50 client's c. RPC 1. 4 (a) (3) , shall keep which states that the client a lawyer reasonably informed about the status of the matter; and d. RPC 1.4 shall (a) which states (4), promptly comply that with a lawyer reasonable requests for information. III. JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE 171. the Petitioner and Respondent jointly recommend that appropriate discipline for Respondent's admitted misconduct is a thirty-month suspension. 172. being Respondent imposed by Attached to Affidavit required consents to the this the hereby consents Supreme Petition by is Pa.R.D.E. to Court the of Pennsylvania. Respondent's 215(d), recommended discipline 173. executed stating and that including mandatory acknowledgements contained in Pa.R.D.E. through ( 4) discipline he the 215(d) (1) . Petitioner and Respondent respectfully submit that there is the following aggravating factor: a. After ODC finalized the Petition for Discipline, ODC received complaints against Respondent in the Julia Robinson, following matters: Cl-13-356, (1) wherein Respondent failed to explain Ms. Robinson's 51 personal injury matter to Ms. Robinson to the extent necessary to enable Ms. Robinson to make an informed decision regarding the proposed settlement and failed to comply with Ms. Robinson's reasonable requests for information regarding settlement; (2) wherein case, Marion Respondent handle Ms. her personal Butler, failed to injury C1-13-534, diligently Butler's condominium settlement advise Ms. Butler that a default judgment had been entered against her, and refund his unearned fee to Ms. Butler. 174. Respondent and ODC respectfully submit that there are the following mitigating factors: a. Respondent has no record of discipline; b. By virtue of Discipline on Respondent's this Respondent Consent, signing has expressed recognition of his violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct; c. Respondent service has to Association, actively bar the Specifically, Treasurer been and Respondent: involved in community. served as the Philadelphia Bar Young Lawyers Division, for 5 of 52 the years; was a trustee of White-Williams Scholars, a non-profit organization in the City Philadelphia of things, provided that, among stipends and other academic support to needy students of Philadelphia; sat on the Delaware Valley and Metropolitan Camden branches served on mater law the of Habitat Alumni school; for Board was Humanity; of his appointed alma to his Township Zoning Board from 2000 - 2005, and was elected Chairman of the Board in 2005; and was President of the basketball league, a youth association of over 500 Respondent continues to coach Township basketball members. both youth basketball and soccer; and d. Respondent did not personally benefit from the mishandling of funds owed to Pitt, which his then-employers deposited in their bank accounts. 175. employed Over at the three Associates (Pitt), (Roberts) , and course of two different law Damon Bowman & K. years, 53 firms--Larry Roberts Kavulich Respondent and (Bowman) Pitt was & Associates After Respondent departed from Pitt, the law firm discovered that Respondent solicited the firm's and clients made misrepresentations to the firm's clients to induce them to leave the firm. (Isaac, matters) . Brown Poindexter, While a and Halsell- Walker, departing attorney is not ethically prohibited from having direct contact with former clients, a departing attorney cannot lure former clients by making false and misleading statements about his prior firm or the client's Lawyer Changes Committee on Committee Bar Joint Barish, See Firms, Ethics Philadelphia Adler, case. Ethical Pennsylvania and Professional Association Formal Obligations Responsibility 2007-300 a Association Bar Professional Opinion, When Guidance (June Daniels, Levin and Creskoff v. and 2007); Epstein, 482 Pa. 416, 393 A.2d 1175 (1978). Respondent's misdeeds solicitation of did not clients. end with his Respondent also improper received settlement checks in personal injury cases that he handled while employed (Soldiew) . at Pitt (Jones and Lane) and Bowman Respondent failed to promptly notify Pitt about his receipt of the $25,000 the $18,750 settlement check in Lane, 40% contingent approximately fee settlement check in Jones and agreements $17,500. and Respondent 54 for which Pitt had would be likewise entitled to failed to promptly notify Bowman about settlement check in So1diew, to receive at least his receipt of the $20, 000 for which Bowman was entitled $10, 000 under Respondent's employment agreement with Bowman. Respondent's quest for settlement funds to which he was not entitled encompassed Respondent's signing of Pitt's signature to the back of two settlement checks Michael that Respondent's Bowman) then-employers deposited into their (Damon bank Roberts; accounts. Neither Respondent nor his then-employers delivered any of the settlement funds owed to Pitt's firm. An attorney's forgery of a signature on documents, not coupled with the attorney's misappropriation, may result in discipline ranging suspension. 29 Pa. Censure See In re Anonymous No. D.&C.3rd 534 on from a public censure to a an (1983) attorney 61 DB 82 three-year (James Hook), (Supreme Court imposed a Public who forged township supervisors' names to agreements for the purchase of coal and sludge) ; and In re Anonymous No. Pa. D.&C.4th 9 suspension on (1986) an 61 DB 95 (Robert (Supreme Court attorney who Jude imposed a forged his Burns), 61 three-year clients' signatures to settlement releases, deposited the settlement funds into his personal account, funds owed to his clients) . 55 and then timely paid the An attorney may likewise receive a suspension ranging up to three years for misappropriating funds owed to a law firm. The quantum of discipline imposed is dependent on a variety of factors, the length of time of the including: misconduct and the amount of funds the attorney mishandled, Office No. of Disciplinary Counsel 95 DB 3/20/2008) consent D.Bd. 2007, v. Rpt. Steven Robert 11/14/2007 Order (S.Ct. (Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension on on Grayson, who over the course of converted $35,000 from his former law firm, of Grayson, discipline, contributions Disciplinary and to paid the restitution) ; community Counsel v. Scott or months, had no record attorney's an the Philip 33 bar, Office No. Sigman, of DB 43 2012, D.Bd. Rpt. 12/7/2012 (S.Ct. Order 2/28/2013) Court imposed a 30-month suspension on consent on Sigman, who converted testified over falsely discipline; in involvement in restitution); $25,000 at a from deposition, mitigation, the and legal an his former and had no Sigman attorney's and serious law firm, record of significant had community (Supreme had misconduct paid in addition to mishandling funds owed to a law firm, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Joan Gaugan Atlas, No. D.Bd. Rpt. 3/24/2004 imposed a (S.Ct. Order 6/29/2004) three-year suspension 56 on an 171 DB 2001, (Supreme Court attorney who misappropriated employer, $35,000 in legal commingled her funds misrepresentations to third fees from her with fiduciary parties, and former funds, failed made to make restitution). lawsuits Four employers were filed Respondent's by seeking to obtain their share of funds former from the settlements that Respondent had entered into while employed at their firms. matters) . (Isaac, Halsell-Brown, and Bowman in burdensome Walker, Respondent engaged frivolous, litigation in these lawsuits, .failing to concede that he had no entitlement to the proceeds of the insurance settlements. Respondent's pleadings, litigation engendered delayed clients' the filing of numerous receipt of settlement funds, and expended the court's limited time and resources. The Philadelphia Court Common of countenance Respondent's misconduct. Isaac testified that Respondent Pleas did not In the Isaac case, Ms. deceived her into signing unread documents, which prompted the Honorable Gary DiVito to write Opinion an creditable," attorney's stating finding fees to that against Pitt. In Ms. Isaac Respondent, sanctions on Respondent, and the Halsell-Brown Honorable Esther Sylvester found in favor of 57 ''most awarding case, Pitt, and ordered Respondent insurance company's attorney's fees. was the imposed to pay the Respondent lost all of the civil suits, which resulted in his former employers' receipt of settlement funds. Attorneys who pursue needlessly expend the such court's litigation limited time tactics and and resources may receive public discipline ranging from a public censure to a five-year suspension depending on the extent of their See, misconduct. Alan S. Court e.g., 44 Fellheimer, imposed Office of Disciplinary Counsel Pa. Public a D.&C.4th Censure represented a corporate debtor in a case and directed his legal 299 (1999) (Supreme Fellheimer, on v. who Chapter 11 bankruptcy associate to file baseless pleadings against the attorney representing the Creditor's Committee so as to intimidate the Committee and its counsel in negotiations) ; Office Anthony Kelly, No. 35 DB 2009, of Disciplinary Counsel D.Bd. Rpt. v. 7/23/2010 Paul (S.Ct. Order 10/28/2010) (Supreme Court imposed an eighteen-month suspension attorney on an who filed multiple meritless lawsuits with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in an effort to coerce defendants into signing a quarry lease, made misrepresentations to DEP, and had a conflict of interest with the plaintiff of lawsuits); and Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Krosby, Pa. D.&C.4th 409 (2005) suspension on Krosby, the 78 (Supreme Court imposed a five-year who engaged in frivolous, 58 vexatious, and harassing litigation for which the bankruptcy court imposed monetary sanctions) . Finally, after Respondent left Bowman, Respondent neglected the medical malpractice matter of Calvin Curtis. Respondent also failed to communicate with Mr. keep Mr. Curtis matter. informed alone, Standing communicate and reasonable about handle diligence the status ordinarily his legal failure client single would of attorney's an a Curtis and matter result in to with private discipline. While 176. there are aspects of Respondent's misconduct that resemble the cases cited above, there are no cases that have the precise amalgamation of misconduct presented here: clients; solicitation improper mishandling of law firm of potential signing funds; an attorney's name to the back of settlement checks; frivolous litigation; and neglect of client matters. Respondent's misconduct merits, at a minimum, public discipline. Respondent's pressuring his Respondent, justice, litigious engaged relentless prior callous and in employers disregard receipt conduct, by litigation of is Kelly, into for sharing the court-imposed more serious who funds at with administration sanctions misconduct received 59 directed an for than of his that eighteen-month suspension, Krosby, but not as vexatious as the misconduct In addition, who received a five-year suspension. Respondent's signing of Pitt's name to of the back of two settlement checks involved more egregious conduct than the misconduct committed by Burns, suspension for checks, forging because unlike his who received clients' Burns, Respondent the settlement funds owed to Pitt. mishandling firms, is of $27,500 less odious unlike Sigman, owed to than settlement did Finally, not deliver Respondent's Respondent's Sigman's who received a three-year to names a prior misconduct, law because thirty-month suspension for converting over $25,000 from his prior law firm, Respondent did not personally receive any of the misappropriated funds after they were deposited into his employers' bank accounts. In the final analysis, most of Respondent's misconduct is inter-related and encompasses different permutations of Respondent's from his former employers to which Respondent was not entitled. ODC calculates the aggregate ongoing that of the the efforts median relevant to obtain discipline cases suspension of thirty months. funds presented referred to by above is a Neither the aggravating nor the mitigating factors presented by this case tend to tip the balance on the optimum 60 amount of discipline. Accordingly, consistent with precedent, a thirty-month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline to be imposed to protect the public deter other attorneys and courts, as well as to from engaging in similar misconduct upon acrimoniously departing from a law firm. WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent respectfully request that: a. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. three-member panel review approve and of and 215 (e) the the 215(g), Disciplinary Joint Board Pennsylvania Court enter with the Supreme recommending an Order that that in Petition Support of Discipline on Consent and file recommendation the its Court the of Supreme Respondent receive a thirty-month suspension; and b. Pursuant to three-member Pa.R.D.E. panel of 215(g) the and 215(i), Disciplinary enter an Order that Respondent pay the the Board necessary costs and expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter, the Board Secretary immediately file the recommendation of the panel and the Petition with the Supreme Court without regard to Respondent' s payment of costs and expenses, costs 61 and all and expenses be paid by Respondent within thirty of the date of Discipline on the panel's approval confirmed in to pay the necessary costs and expenses at a later date. Respectfully and jointly submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION CHIEF DISCIPLINARY By Date the Consent unless Respondent and the Board Secretary enter into a plan, writing, of rriet R. Brumberg Disciplinary Counsel Date 62 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 44 DB 2013; and ODC File Nos. Cl-13-356 & C1-l3 -534 v. Atty. Reg. No. 89682 DENNIS G. YOUNG, JR., Respondent (Philadelphia) VERIFICATION The statements Petition In Pa.R.D.E. 215 (d) knowledge, the Support contained Of in the Discipline On foregoing Joint Consent Under are true and correct to the best of our information and belief and are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. '7 fq l~ot ':) arriet R. Brumberg Disciplinary Counsel Date 7 /;ohat 3 Dat'e I I/ Date \o / a.o\:0 \~· BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 44 DB 2013; and ODC File Nos. C1-13-356 & C1-13-534 v. Atty. Reg. No. 89682 DENNIS G. YOUNG, JR., Respondent (Philadelphia) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Respondent, Dennis G. Young, Jr., hereby states that he consents to the imposition of a suspension of thirty months as jointly Counsel recommended (ODC), by Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary and Respondent in the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent, and further states that: 1. His consent is freely and voluntarily rendered; he is not being subjected to coercion or duress; he is fully aware of the implications of submitting the consent; and he has consulted with William J. Honig, Esquire, in connection with the decision to consent to discipline; 2. He is aware that there is presently pending a formal proceeding involving allegations that he has been guilty of pending an misconduct as set forth in the Joint Petition. 3. He is aware that there is presenting investigation into allegations that he is guilty of misconduct (C1-13-356 and C1-13-534) as set forth in the Joint Petition. 4. He acknowledges that the material facts set forth in the Joint Petition are true; and 5. He consents because pending against him continue proceeding if and charges investigation were filed, he predicated _:":,1 \ ~"-;,~ ::::S~':J if upon the the charges in the pending matters under then he could not successfully defend Sworn to and subscribed day of that to be prosecuted against them. before me this knows ' 2013. I(AREN D. LAW tO #2412581 NOTMl.'tPliBUC OF NEW JERW. My eommlsSion Expires 9121/21l1b

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.