No. 2037 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. No. 2037 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 20 DB 2014 Attorney Registration No. 308229 ANTHONY J . MOSES, (Luzerne County) Respondent ORDER PERCURIAM AND NOW, this 2ih day of April , 2016, upon consideration of the Verified Statement of Resignation, Anthony J. Moses is disbarred on consent from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, see Pa.R.D .E. 215, and he shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D .E. 217. pursuant to Pa.R. D.E. 208(g). A True Co_py Patricia Nicola As Of 4/27/L016 Attest:~-~ Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner No. 2037 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 20 DB 2014 V. Attorney Registration No. 308229 ANTHONY J. MOSES Respondent (Luzerne County) RESIGNATION BY RESPONDENT Pursuant to Rule 215 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF Tiffi SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 20 DB 2014 Petitioner Attorney Registration No. 308229 Anthony J. Moses, Respondent (Luzerne County) RESIGNATION UNDER RULE 215, Pa.RD.E. Respondent hereby tenders his resignation from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in conformity with Rule 215 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (Pa.R.D.E.) and further states as follows: 1. He is an attorney in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania having been admitted to the Bar on April 12, 2010. 2. He desires to submit his resignation as a member of said Bar. 3. His resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered; he is not being subjected to coercion or duress and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting this resignation. 4. He is aware that there are presently pending investigations into allegations that he is guilty of misconduct, the nature of which allegations are contained in Exhibit "A," made a part hereof and attached hereto. 5. He acknowledges that the material facts upon which the allegations contained in Exhibit "A" are based are true. 6. He submits the within resignation because he knows that, if charges were predicated upon the misconduct under investigation, he could not successfully defend himself against them. 7. He is fully aware that the within resignation statement is irrevocable and that he can apply for reinstatement to the practice oflaw only pursuant to the provisions of Rule 218, Pa.R.D.E. 8. He acknowledges that he is fully aware of his right to consult and employ counsel to l'fSM represent him in the instant proceeding. He has~ retained, consulted and acted upon the advice of counsel in connection with this decision to execute the within resignation. It is understood that the statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 (relating to unswom falsification to authorities). Signed this-'-'/...... ~_day of ltr-J' , 2016 WITNESS: ~/ -2- BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner 20 DB 2014 v. Attorney Registration No.308229 ANTHONY J. MOSES, Respondent (Luzerne) PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE Petitioner, Office of Di sciplinary Counsel, ("ODC" ) by Paul J. Killion, Esquire, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and by Kristin A. Wells, Esquire, Disciplinary Counsel, files the within Petition for Discipline and charges Respondent, Lisa Jo FanelliGreer, ~ith professional misconduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct ( "RPC") and Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement ("Pa.R.D . E . "), as follows: 1. Petitioner, Judicial 62625, Center, 207, principal office is 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, Pa . R.D.E . whose PA with 17106-2625, the power and is located at Suite· 2700, invested duty to PA P.O. Box pursuant to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice prosecute law all in the Commonwealth disciplinary of proceedings Pennsylvania brought in and to accordance FEB 0 9 2016 Oflic~ ct t:10 Scc~.3~.:liY Tho Disc!p!'.r::::ry Beard of tile Supremo Ccert cf Pcnnsytvanin with the various provisions of said Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. 2. Respondent , Anthony J. Moses, was born in 1979 and was admitted to practice law in the Corrunonwealth of Pennsylvania on April 12, 2010. 3. Respondent's registered address is 235 Butler Street, Kingston, Pennsylvania, 18704. 4. to Pursuant to Pa . R.D.E. 201(a) (1), Respondent is subject the discipl inary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania . 5. matter s , to This concerns Respondent's neglect of unauthorized practice of law while suspended, respond Position , matter to ODC's and numerous failure to DB-7 appear Requests pursuant client failure for Respondent's a Pennsylvania to Supreme Court Subpoena to produce documentation. The Beckwith Matter 6. retained In or about Respondent February on 2013, behalf of Joan Beckwith her son, Paul (Beckwith) Beckwith's {Paul), for representation in his criminal matter. ·7. On Respondent a or about $1 , 500 February 28 , 2013, retainer for his services ; Be ckwith no writing was executed setting forth the basis or rate of Respondent's fee. 2 paid 8. At the time County Public of Respondent' s Defender's Off ice engagement, had the already Luzerne entered an appearance on Paul's behalf. 9. 10. the Respondent failed to take any action in this matter. In or about April 2013, Beckwith requested a refund of $1,500 retainer, noting that Respondent had failed to perform any work on the matter. 11. Respondent immediately returned $600. 00, and promised to return the remaining $900 . 00 by check. 12 . check On April 11, 2013, Respondent provided Beckwith with a in the amount of $ 900. 00 drawn on an Attorney at Law account with First Liberty Bank and Trust, which is not an IOLTA account. 13 . When Bec kwith attempted to negotiate the check, it was r eturned for insufficient funds. 14. with the To date, Respondent has failed to prov ide Beckwith remaining $900 . 00 of her refund or provide Paul with his file . 15 . Respondent failed to properly identify and safeguard the $1500. 00 retainer paid in this case in that ·he failed to deposit the same into his IOLTA account and draw upon i t only after earning such fees. 1 6. By Supreme Court Subpoena dated October 8, 20 13, wh ich was personally served on Respondent October 17, 2013, Respondent 3 was directed to, inter alia, produce financial records and other material in connection with his representation of Paul. 17. The Subpoena return date was 10: 00 AM on October 23, 2013, at which time Respondent was to appear at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center and produce the subpoenaed documents . 18. Respondent failed to appear, and to date has failed to provide ODC with the subpoenaed documents. 19. By letter dated December 1, 2014, ODC requested Respondent's position as to allegations concerning his failure to abide by the October 8, 2013, mailing was returned as unclaimed, Subpoena. The certified but the first class mailing was not returned. 20. Respondent failed to respond to the DB-7 by the 30-day deadline. 21. On March 23, 2015, an ODC Investigator hand-delivered the December 1, 2014, DB-7 to Respondent. 22 . To date, Respondent has failed to respond to the DB-7. 23. By Respondent 's concerning letter dated position his as October to representation the of 9, 2013, ODC above-summarized Paul, and · that requested allegations Respondent produce all documents pertaining to his representation in this matter along with all financial records maintenance of the $1500.00 retainer fee. 4 for the deposit and The certified mailing was returned as unclaimed, but the first class mailing was not returned. 24. Respondent failed to respond to the DB-7 or to provide the requested documentation by the 30-day deadline. 25. Respondent was personally served with the DB-7 on October 17, 2013. 26. Respondent failed to respond to the DB-7 or provide the requested documents. 27. The DB-7 request was re-sent on December 19, 2013. The certified mailing was returned as unclaimed, but the first class mailing was not returned. 28. Respondent again failed to respond or provide the requested documents. 29. On March 23, 2015, an ODC Investigator hand-del ivered the October 9, 2013, DB-7 to Respondent. 30. To date, Respondent has failed to respond to the DB-7 or to provide the requested documents. 31. By letter dated May 20, 2013, Intake Counsel Suzy Moore requested information from Respondent. to 32. Respondent failed to respond 33. On May 29, 2013, Ms. Moore again attempted to contact Respondent by leaving a voicemail at this communication. his registered contact phone number. 34. Respondent failed to respond to this communication. 5 35. On June 10, 2013, Ms. Moore again left a voicemail for Respondent at his registered contact phone number. 36. Respondent failed to respond to this communication. 37. On June 18 and 24, 2013, Ms. Moore attempted to call Respondent at his registered contact phone number, but the call would not go through. 38. Huss On August called 27, 2013, Respondent's then-Disciplinary Counsel cell phone. During the Joseph ensuing conversation, Respondent indicated he would review the matter as soon as he returned to the office and would call Disciplinary Counsel Huss back with updated infonnation as to the status of the refund. 39. Respondent Disciplinary Counsel failed Huss to or further communicate otherwise provided the with requested information. 40. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 6 through 39 above, Respondent violated the following Rule: a. RPC 1.3, which states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client"; b. RPC 1. 4 ( a } ( 2 ) , which states, "A lawyer shall reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client' s accomplished"; 6 objectives are to be c. RPC l.S (b ) , which states, "When the lawyer has not regularly represented the cl ient, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, writing, before or within a reasonable time in after commencing the representation"; d. RPC 1.15 (b), which states, "A lawyer shall hold all Rule 1.15 lawyer's Funds own and property separate from Such property shall property. the be identified and properly safeguarded"; e. RPC l.15(e), which states, in pertinent part, "[A] lawyer shall promptly .deliver to the client ... any property, including but not limited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client ... is entitled to receive"; f. RPC 1 . 16(d) , which states, in pertinent part, termination of r epresentation, steps to protect the a extent client's a lawyer shall take reasonably practicable interests, reasonable notice to the client, "Upon such as to giving allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which refunding any the advanced client payment is of entitled fee or and expense that has not been earned or incurred"; g. RPC 8. 1 (b ) , which states, in pertinent lawyer in connection with ... a 7 part, "[A disciplinary matter, shall not ... knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority" ; h. RPC 8 . 4(b), which states , "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely trustworthiness or on the fitness as lawyer's a honesty , lawyer in other respects"; i. RPC which 8 . 4(c), misconduct for involving a states , lawyer "It to dishonesty , is professional engage fraud , in conduct deceit or misre presen tation"; j . RFC 8.4(d), which states, " It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice"; k. Pa . R. D. E . 203(b) (4), which states , "The following shall also be grounds for discipline ... Failure by a respondent-attorney without good cause to comply with any order under the Enforcement Rules of t he Supreme Court , the Board, a hearing corcuni ttee or special master"; and 1. Pa. R. D. E. 203 (b) ( 7) , which states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline ... Failure by a respondent-attorney without good cause to respond to 8 Disciplinary request for a Counsel's request or supplemental under Disciplinary Board Rules, statement of the 87. 7 {b) § respondent-attorney's position." The Shaw Matter 41. Respondent In or about May 2013, Beverly Gunter (Gunter} retained on behalf of her son, Kevin Shaw (Shaw), for representation in his criminal matter. 42. Respondent representation, and requested an a agreement $1,500.00 was retainer reached for whereby the Gunter would pay $1000.00 upfront and then the remaining $500.00 upon Respondent's completion of the case. 4 3. No writing was executed setting forth, the basis or $1000. 00 by rate of Respondent's fee. 44. On May 3, 2013, Gunter paid Respondent Respondent failed to properly identify and safeguard check. 45. the $1000. 00 retainer paid in this case in that he failed to deposit the same into his IOLTA account and draw upon it only after earning such fees. 46. When Respondent failed to take any action on Shaw's behalf, the Luzerne County Public Defender's Office entered its appearance in the matter. 9 47. In or about June 2013, the Luzerne County Public Defender's Office successfully had Shaw's charges dismissed . 48. Thereafter, Gunter contacted Responqent requesting a refund based on Respondent's failure to perform any work in . the matter. Respondent requested more time to work on the case, but Gunter informed him that the matter had already been resolved through the Public Defender's representation. Respondent then assured Gunter that he would provide her with a full refund of the retainer fee. 49. Thereafter, Gunter unsuccessfully attempted to contact Respondent on numerous occasions herself and through New York Public Defender Ashley Cooper. 50. To date, Respondent has failed to provide Gunter with a refund or provide Shaw with his file. 51 . By Supreme Court Subpoena dated October 8, 2013, which was personally served on Respondent October 17, 2013, Respondent was directed to , inter alia, produce financ ial records and other material in connection with his .representation of Shaw. 52. The Subpoena return date was 10: 00 AM on October 23 , 2013, at · which time Respondent was to appear at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center and produce the subpoenaed documents. 53. Respondent failed to appear, and to date has failed to provide ODC with the subpoenaed documents. 10 ·I I i I 54. By letter dated December 1, 2014, ODC request ed Respondent ' s position as t o allegations concerning his failure to abide by the October 8, 201 3, mailing was returned as unclaimed, Subpoena. The certified but the first class mailing was not returned. 55. Respondent fai led to respond to the DB-7 by the 30-day deadline . 56. On March 23, 2015, an ODC Investigator hand-delivered the December 1, 2014, DB-7 to Respondent. To date , Respondent has fai led to respond to the DB- 7. 57 . By letter Respondent's concerning dated position his as October to 31 , .2013, ODC the . above-summarized representation of Shaw, and that requested allegations Respondent produce all documents pertaining to his representation i n this matter along with all financ ial records maintenance of the $ 1000.00 retainer fee. f or the deposit and The certified mailing was returned as unclaimed , but the f irst class mailing was not returned . 58 . Respondent failed to respond to the DB- 7 or to provide the requested documentation by the 30 - day deadline . 59 . The DB-7 was re-sent on December 19, 2013 . The certified mai l i ng was returned as unclaimed , but the firs t class mailing was not ret urned . 11 60. Respondent again failed to respond or provide the requested documents. 61. Oh Investigator December 20, 2013, hand-delivered and the March October 23, 31, 2015, 2013, an ODC DB-7 to Respondent. 62. To date, Respondent has failed to respond to the DB-7 or to provide the requested documents. 63. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 41 through 62 above, Respondent violated the following Rules: a. RPC 1.3, which states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client"; b. RPC 1. 4 (a) ( 2 ) , which states, "A lawyer shall reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished"; c. RPC 1. 5 (b) , which states, "When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, writing, before or within a reasonable time in after commencing the representation"; d. RPC l.lS(b), which states, "A lawyer shall hold all Rule 1.15 Funds and 12 property separate from the lawyer's own property. Such property shall· be identified and properly safeguarded"; e. RPC l.15(e), which states, in pertinent part, "[A] lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client ... any property, including but not limited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client ... is entitled to receive"; f. RPC · 1.16 (d), which states, in pertinent part, termination of representation, steps to the protect a extent client' s a "Upon lawyer shall reasonably practicable interests, such reasonable notice to the client, as take to giving allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which refunding any the advanced client payment is of entitled fee or and expense that has not been earned or incurred"; g. RPC 8. 1 (b) , which states, in pertinent part, lawyer in connection with ... a shall not demand disciplinary matter, knowingly fail to respond to a for information "[A] from lawful disciplinary authority"; h. RPC 8.4{b), which misconduct for a that reflects states, "It is professional lawyer to ... commit a criminal act adversely 13 on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects"; i. RPC 8.4(c), misconduct which for involving a states, lawyer "It to dishonesty, is professional engage in conduct deceit fraud, or misrepresentation"; j . RPC 8.4(d), which states, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of . justice"; k. Pa.R.D.E. which 203(b) (4}, states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline ... Failure by a respondent-attorney without good cause to comply with any order under the Enforcement Rules of the Supreme Court, the Board, a hearing committee or special master"; and l. Pa . R.D.E. 203 (b) (7}, which states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline ... Failure by a respondent-attorney without good cause to respond to Disciplinary request for a Counsel's request or supplemental under Disciplinary Board Rules, statement of position." 14 the § · 87. 7 (b) respondent-attorney's The Vasse11o Matter 64. On or about May 30, 2013, Ryan Vassello contacted Respondent for representation in an appeal from an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review determination to the Commonweal th Court. 65. On June 15, 2013, Respondent entered his appearance on Vassello's behalf. 66. By Order dated September 16, 2013, the Commonwealth Court directed Respondent to file a brief within 14 days. 67. Respondent additional time to failed file file to the same a or brief within the request allotted time period. 68. following On October 2 , his 2013, Vassello repeated unsuccessful filed a pro attempts to se brief, communication with Respondent. 69. Respondent By letter dated October 2, 2013 , to Vassello, acknowledged his failure to timely file a brief in this matter. 70. for On October 7, Extension of Time 2013 , to Respondent File Brief filed along an Application with a Brief he alleged was filed by mail on August 9, 2013, but not received by the Court for unknown reasons. Respondent further a lleged that he never received the Court's September 16, 2013, Order because it was sent to a law firm where he had not worked in 15 months. 15 71. By Order dated October 9, 2013, the Commonwealth Court directed that Vassello' s pro se brief be deemed timely filed, but declined to accept Respondent's brief based on its f~ilure to conform to the directed Respondent 2013 , Rules to of Appellate file an Procedure . amended brief by The Court October 23 , and warned that failure to do so would lead to dismissal of the case . 72. Respondent failed to make any further filings on Vassello' s behalf and failed to inform Vassello of the Court's October 9, 2013, Order. 73. By Order dated November 1, 2013, the Commonwealth Court dismissed Vassello's appeal. 74. By Respondent's letter dated position as November to the 21, 2014, ODC above-summarized requested allegations. The certified mailing was returned as unclaimed, but the first class mailing was not returned. 75. Respondent failed to respond to the DB-7 by the 30-day deadline. 76. On March 23, 2015, an ODC Investigator hand-delivered the November 21 , 2014, DB-7 to Respondent; 77. To date, Respondent has failed to respond to the DB-7. 78 . By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 64 through 78 above, Respondent violated the following Rules: 16 a. RPC 1.1, which "A lawyer representation competent states, to a client. representation requires the lega l thoroughness and preparation shall provide Competent knowledge, reasonably skill, necessary for the representation"; b. RPC 1. 4 (a) (3) , which states, lawyer shall "A keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter"; c. RPC which 1. 4 (a) ( 4 ) , promptly comply states, with "A reasonable lawyer shall requests for information"; d. RPC 1. 4 (b), which states, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation"; e. RPC 8. 1 (b) , which st.ates, in pertinent part, " [A] lawyer in connection with ... a disciplinary matter, shall not demand knowingly fail to respond to a for information lawful disciplinary from authority"; . f. RPC 8.4(c), misconduct involving which for a states, lawyer dishonesty, misrepresentation" ; 17 to "It is engage fraud, professional in conduct deceit or g. RPC 8.4(d), which states, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice"; and h. 203(b) (7), Pa.R.D.E. which states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline _ Failure by a respondent-attorney without good cause to respond to Disciplinary Counsel's request under for a request or supplemental Disciplinary Board Rules, statement of 8 7. 7 (b) § respondent-attorney's the position." Respondent's Criminal Conviction 79. driving On under September the 26, influence 2014, Respondent and was pled sentenced to guilty to six months Intermediate Punishment Plan. 80. Respondent failed to report his conviction Office of Disciplinary Counsel within 20 days, to the as required by Disciplinary Board Rules and Procedures §91.31. 81. By Respondent's letter dated position as November to the 21, 2014, ODC requested above-summarized allegations. The certified mailing was returned as uncl·aimed, but the · first class mailing was not returned. 82. Respondent failed to respond to the DB-7 by the 30-day deadline. 18 83. On March 23, 2015, an ODC Investigator hand-delivered the November 21, 2014, DB - 7 Request to Respondent. 84. To date, Respondent has failed to respond to the DB-7. 85. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 79 through 84 above, Respondent violated the following Rules: a. RPC 8 .1 (b), which states, in pertinent part, lawyer in connection with ... a disciplinary matter, shall not ... knowingly fail to respond to demand for information "[A] from a lawful disciplinary authority"; b. RPC 8.4(b), which misconduct for a that reflects trustworthiness states, "It is professional lawyer to ... commit a criminal act adversely or on fitness the as lawyer's a lawyer honesty, in other respects"; c. Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) (1), which states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline ... Conviction of a crime"; d. Pa.R.D.E. 214(a), which states, "An attorney convicted of in pertinent part, a crime shall · report the fact of such conviction within 20 days to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel"; and e. Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) (7 ) , which states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline ... Failure by a 19 respondent-attorney without good cause to respond to Disciplinary request for Counsel's under a request or supplemental Disciplinary Board Rules, statement of the § 87. 7 (b) respondent-attorney's position." Respondent's Administrative Suspension 86. 18, By 2013, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Respondent was Order dated placed on Administrative September Suspension, effective October 18, 2013. 87. After Suspension, the effective date Respondent continued to in various matters before the of his Administrative represent numerous clients Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas by appearing on their behalf in court . BB. Respondent failed to advise his clients or the court of his Administrative Suspension. 89. The following appearances by Respondent constituted the unauthorized practice of law: a. In Commonwealth v. Crystal Barna, 642, 1443, 1444 CR 2013, Respondent represented the defendant in entering guilty pleas to multiple charges on October 18, 20 1 3. These pleas were subsequently vacated by Order of the Luzerne County Court dated October 28, 2013, based upon Respondent's representation of the defendant while administratively suspended. 20 b. In Commonwealth v. Daniel 3974 Smiley, CR 2012, Respondent represented the defendant in entering a guilty The plea on subsequently October 21 , vacated and rescheduled by Order of based on 2013 . the Respondent's plea plea was proceedings Luzerne County representation Court of the defendant while administratively suspended. c. In Commonwealth v. Respondent Nathan appeared defendant's for counsel 137 CR 2013 , Richardson, a on plea October hearing 21, as the 2013; the defendant refused to plea and requested a trial. d. In Commonwealth v. Steven Zona, Respondent represented the defendant 314 CR 2013, in entering a guilty plea and sentencing on October 21, 2013. plea and sentenced were later The vacated by Luzerne County Court Order dated November S, 2013, based on Respondent's representation of the defendant while administratively suspended. e. · In Commonwealth v. Stacey Bradshaw, Respondent represented the defendant 874 CR in entering a · guilty plea and sentencing on October 21 , 2013. plea and sentence were later 2013, vacated by The Luzerne County Court Order dated October 28, 2013, based on 21 Respondent's representation of the defendant while administratively suspended. f. In Commonwealth Respondent made v. a Vance request Dawson, for 1236 CR continuance 2013, on the defendant's behalf on October 21 , 2013; the request was granted. In Commonwealth v. g. Stephanie Torres, 2260 CR 2012, Respondent represented the defendant on October 28, 2013, during which proceeding the defendant's ARD was revoked and a Bench Warrant was issued for his arrest. These actions were subsequently vacated by Luzerne County Court Order dated October 28, based on Respondent's representation of 2013, the defendant while administratively suspended. 90. On October 28, 2013, Respondent signed a DB-25 Statement of Compliance, which was then filed with the Secretary of the Board on October 29, 2013 , one day after the 10-day deadline. 91. Respondent failed to serve a copy of the DB-25 on ODC. 92. Attached to the Statement of Compliance · ·were· · 41 letters purportedly sent to Respondent's clients notifying them of his Administrative including Richardson, letters Suspension purportedly Daniel Smiley I prior to sent to Stacey Bradshaw r 22 October 18, Vassello, Steven Zona, 2013 , Nathan Vance Dawson, Adrian Bannell, and Crystal Barna. No letter addressed to Stephanie Torres or the Luzerne County Court was attached. 93 . Respondent failed to provide certified receipts for these notices or serve a copy of the same on ODC . 94. Respondent's attachment of these letters to his DB-25 amounted to a misrepresentation to the Board in that he did not send these notices to his clients. 95. On October 29 , 2013, Respondent was returned to Good Standing . 96 . By DB- 7 dated December 18, 2013, ODC requested Respondent's position as to the above - summarized all egations and a copy of a l l communications between Re s pondent and t he named clients, all communications between Respondent and the District Attorney or other law enforcement , and all communication between Respondent and any judicial officials or offices from September 18 , 2013 until October 28, returned as unclaimed, but 2013 . the The first certified mailing class mailing was was not returned . 97. To date, Respondent has failed to respond to the DB-7 or provide the requested document s. 98. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 86 through 97 above, Respondent violated the following Rules: a. RPC l . 4(a) (5) , consult with which the 23 states, client "A about l awyer any shall relevant limitation on the lawyer's c onduct when the lawyer knows that the c l ient permitted by the Rules expects assistance not of Professional Conduct or other law"; b. RPC 1.4(b), which states, "A lawyer shall expl ain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation"; c. RPC "[A] 1.1 6 (a ) (1 ) , which states, in pertinent part, lawyer shall not repres e nt a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result Profes~ional d. in a violation of the Rules of Conduct or other law"; RPC 3.3(a) (1), which states, "A lawyers shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer"; e. RPC 5.5(a), which practice law in a regulation of states, "A lawyer shal l not jurisdiction in violation of the the legal profession in jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so"; 24 that f. RPC 8.l(b) provides, in pertinent part, "[A] in connection with ... a lawyer disciplinary matter, shall not ... knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from ... disciplinary authority"; g. RPC which 8. 4 (c), misconduct a for involving "It states, lawyer to dishonesty, is professional engage fraud, in conduct deceit or misrepresentation"; h. RPC 8.4(d), which states, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice"; i. Pa.R.D.E. which 203(b) (4), states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline _ Failure by a respondent-attorney to comply with any order under the Enforcement Rules of the Supreme Court, without the Board, 203(b) (7) which good a cause hearing committee or special master"; j. Pa.R.D.E. states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline ... Failure by a respondent-attorney without good cause to respond to Disciplinary request under for a Counsel's request or supplemental Disciplinary Board Rules, statement of position"; 25 the § 87 . 7 (b) respondent-attorney's k. Pa.R . D.E. 217(a) require formerly not i fy, or and · (b), their which, in pertinent part, admitted · attorneys cause to be notified, to in all suspension or administrative writing clients suspension, of and consequent inability to act as an attorney after the effective date thereof, and legal counsel elsewhere. that a advise them to seek Further, the Rule requires copy of these notices and proofs of receipt be filed with the Secretary of the Board and served upon the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ; l. Pa.R.D.E. requires notify, 217 (c) (3), which, in pertinent part, formerly admitted attorneys to in writing or cause to be notified, any tribunal, court, agency, or jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted to practice of their suspension or administrative suspension; rn. Pa.R.D.E. 217(e), which, in pertinent part, requires formerly admitted attorneys to, within 10 days after the effective administrative date of suspension, their to suspension file or a · verified statement with the Secretary of the Board and serve a copy on Disciplinary Counsel, which is to include averrnents and information delineated by the Rule; 26 n. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j) (1) which states, in pertinent part, "A formerly admitted attorney may not engage in any form of law-related activities in this Commonwealth except in accordance with the following requirements All law-related admitted attorney activities shall be of the conducted formerly under the supervision of a member in good standing of the Bar of this Commonwealth"; o. Pa . R.D.E. 217(j) (2), which states, "A formerly admitted attorney may not engage in any form of lawrelated activities accordance purposes related with of in this the this following subdivision activities formerly Commonweal th except that requirements the (j), may be admitted attorney are the legal work of a research, information, documents, of and data and drafting pleadings, by and a (i) such as legal other of briefs, law- following: preparatory nature, assembly For only conducted in necessary transactional other similar documents; (ii) direct communicati on with the· client or parties third paragraph ( 3) ; to and (iii) the extent permitted by accompanying a member in good standing of the Bar of this Commonweal th t o a deposition or other discovery matter or to a meeting 27 regarding a litigation, matter for the that is limited not currently purpose of in providing c lerical assistan ce to the member in good standing who appears as the representative of the client"; p. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(3), which states, "A formerly admitted attorney may have direct corrununication with a client or third party regarding handled by the attorney, a matter being organization, or firm for which the formerly admitted attorney works only if the communication is limited to ministerial matters such as of scheduling, receipt billing, sending The messages. or formerly updates, of confirmation correspondence admitted attorney and shall clearly indicate in any such communication that he or she is a legal assistant and identify the supervising attorney"; and q. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j) (4) , which states, in pertinent part "Without limiting subdivision (j), the a other formerly restrictions admitted in this attorney is specifically prohibited from engaging in ·any · of the following activities: (i) performing any law-related activity for a law firm , organization or lawyer if the formerly admitted attorney was associated with that law firm, organization or lawyer on or after 28 the date on which the acts which resulted in the ... suspension occurred, through effective date of the and including suspension; (ii) the performing any law-related services from an office that is not staffed by basis; a supervising attorney on a · full time (iii) performing any law-related services for any client who in the past was represented by the formerly admitted attorney; {iv) representing himself ... as a lawyer or person of similar status; (v) having person, any by provided contact telephone, in paragraph consultation or advice; with clients either in in writing, except as or (3); {vi) rendering legal (vii) appearing on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any court ... ; negotiating or transacting any matter for or on behalf of a client with third parties or having any contact with third parties regarding such a negotiation or transaction ; receiving, (x) disbursing or otherwise handling client funds[.]" The L1erena Matter 99. c ontacted On October Respondent Horatio Llerena 23 , 2013, regarding Krystle Llerena representation for her (Llerena ) father , (Horatio ) , who was in custody in New Jersey for 29 the theft of a tractor trailer in Pennsylvania, which he then drove to New Jersey . 100. Respondent agreed to accept the representation for a retainer fee of $4 , 500.00. 101. No writing was executed setting forth the basis or rate of Respondent's fee. 102. Union and Llerena sent Respondent $2 , 500.00 through Western then sent the remaining $2, 000. 00 to Respondent's mother through the same service. 103. Respondent safeguard the $4 , 500. 00 failed to properly identify retainer paid in this case in that and he failed to deposit the same into his IOLTA account and draw upon it only after earning such fees. 104. Respondent's acceptance of this representation constituted the unauthorized practice of law in that he was on Administrative Suspension pursuant to Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order dated September 18 , 2013, effective October 18 , 20 13. 105. In or about November 2013, Horatio was scheduled fo r an extradition hearing in New Jersey . 106'. Despite · Respondent's assurances that he · would ·- · - attend the hearing , he did not appear. 107. courthouse, When Llerena contacted Respondent he stated that he was on his 30 way, from the but had gotten lost and that he had informed the courthouse staff that he would be late. 108 . When Llerena inquired with the courthouse staff as to whether Respondent had provided notice that he would be late, she was informed that no communication had been received from Respondent. 109. Respondent failed to enter his appearance on Horatio's behalf in New Jersey. 110. extradited Approximately to one and Pennsylvania week a later, Horatio preliminary hearing was was scheduled for November 19 , 2013. 111. Respondent failed to appear for the preliminary hearing, and it was therefore continued until January 13, 2014. 112. In or about early January 2014, Respondent informed Horatio that he would no longer be representing him. 113. Upon Horatio's request, Respondent agreed to refund the retainer fee. 114. Since that date, despite numerous attempts, Llerena has been unable to communicate with Respondent, and he has failed to provide Llerena with a refund or provide Horatio with his file. 115. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs through 114 above, Respondent violated the following Rules: 31 99 a. RPC 1 . 1, which "A lawyer representation competent states, to a shall c lient. provide Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, thoroughness and preparation reasonably skill, necessary for the representation"; b. RPC 1.4(a ) (4 ) , promptly which comply states, with "A reasonable lawyer shall requests for information"; c. RPC 1.4(a) (5), consult with which the "A states, client lawyer about any shall relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client permitted by the Rules of expects assistance Professional Conduct not or other law"; d. RPC 1. 4 (b ), which states, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation"; e. RPC 1. 5 (b) , which states, "When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation"; 32 in f. RPC 1.lS (b ) , which states, "A lawyer shal l hold a l l Rule 1 . 15 lawyer's Funds own and property separate from the Such property sha l l be property . identified and properly safeguarded"; g. RPC 1.15(e), which states, in pertinent part, "[A] lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client ... any property, including but not l imited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client ... is entitled to receive"; h. RPC l.16(a ) (1), "[A] which states, in pertinent part, lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other l aw" ; i. RPC 1 . 16(d), which states, in pertinent part, "Upon termination of representation , steps to protect the a extent client ' s a lawyer shall t ake reasonably practicable i nterests , reasonable notice to the client , such as to giving allowing time fo r employment of · ot her counsel, surrendering papers and property to refunding any whi ch the client advanced payment is of entitled fee that h a s not been earned or incurred"; 33 or and expense .! I j. RPC 5.5(a), which states, "A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of legal the profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so"; k. RPC 8.4(c), misconduct which for involving states, a lawyer "It to dishonesty, is professional engage fraud, in conduct deceit or misrepresentation"; 1. RPC 8.4(d), which states, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice"; m. Pa.R . D.E. 203(b) (4 ), which states, "The ~ . shall als o be grounds for discipline respondent-attorney without good following Failure by a cause to comply with any order under the Enforcement Rules of the Supreme Court,. the Board, a hearing committee or special master"; n. Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) (7) which states, "The following shall also be grounds for discipline _ Failure by a respondent ~attorney Disciplinary request for a under without good cause to respond to · Counsel's request or supplemental · Disciplinary Board Rules, statement of position"; 34 the § 87 . 7 (b) respondent-attorney's o. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j ) {l} which states, in pertinent part, "A formerly admitted attorney may not engage in any a~tivities form of law-related in this Comrnonwealth except in accordance with the following requirements All law-related admitted attorney activities shall be of the conducted formerly under the supervision of a member in good standing of the Bar of this Commonwealth"; p. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j} (2), which states, formerly "A admitted attorney may not engage in any form of lawrelated activities accordance purposes with of in this the this following activities that formerly admitted attorney research, documents, (j} , be may are the the of and data and pleadings, briefs, lawby following : and a (i) such as legal other of drafting in For only conducted preparatory nature, assembly information, requirements subdivision related legal work of a Commonwealth except necessary transactional other similar documents; (ii) direct communication with -the- client or parties third paragraph ( 3} ; to and (iii} the extent permitted accompanying a member by in good standing of the Bar of this Commonweal th to a deposition or other discovery matter or to a meeting 35 regarding a litigation , matter for the that is limited not currentl y purpose of in providing clerical assistance to the member in good standing who appears as the representative of the client"; q. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j) (3), which states, "A formerly admitted attorney may have direct communication with a client or third party regarding a handled by the attorney, matter being organization, or firm for which the formerly admitted attorney works only if the communication is limited to ministerial matters such as of scheduling, receipt billing, sending The messages. or formerly updates, of confirmation correspondence admitted attorney and shall clearly indicate in any such communication that he or she is a legal assistant and identify the supervising attorney"; and r. Pa.R . D.E. 217(j) (4), which states, in pertinent part "Without limiting subdivision (j) , the a other formerly restrictions admitted specifically prohibited from engaging following activities: in this attorney ~n is any of the (i) performing any law-related activity for a law firm, organization or lawyer if the formerly admitted attorney was associated with that law firm, organization or lawyer on o r 36 after the date on which the acts which resulted in the ... suspension occurred, through and including effective date of the ... suspension; the (ii} performing any law-related services from an office that is not staffed by a supervising attorney on a full time basis; (iii) performing any law-related services for any client who in the past was represented by the formerly admitted attorney; (iv) representing himself ... as a lawyer or person of similar status; (v) having person, provided by in any contact telephone, clients either in in writing, except as or paragraph consultation or advice; with (3); (vi) rendering legal (vii) appearing on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any court ... ; negotiating or transacting any matter for or on behalf of a client with third parties or having any contact with third parties regarding such a negotiation or transaction; (x) receiving, disbursing or otherwise handling client funds[.]" Respondent's Emergency Temporary Suspension- - 116. Emergency On February 19, 2014, ODC filed a Temporary Suspension and Related Petition for Relief Pursuant to Pa.R.D .E. 208(f), summarizing the misconduct detailed above. 37 11 7. A Rule to Show Cause was entered 118. Respondent did not file a Response. 119. By February 2 8, Respondent was 2014. Order dated March 21, 2014, placed on Emergency Temporary Suspension. 120. file the As of February 5, 2016, Respondent has failed to required Statement of Compliance and has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 2 17. 121. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 116 through 120 above, Respondent .violated the following Rules: a. Pa.R.D.E. 217 (a) require formerly notify, or and (b), which, their in pertinent part, admitted attorneys cause to be notified, to all in writing clients suspension or administrative suspension , of and consequent inability to act as an attorney after the effective date thereof , legal counsel elsewhere. and advise them to seek Further, the Rule requires that a copy of these notices and proo f s of receipt be filed with the Secretary of the Board and served upon the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; · · b. Pa.R.D.E . 217(c)(3), which, in pert i nent part, requires formerly admitted attorneys to in writing notify, or cause to be notified, any tribunal, court, agency, or jurisdiction in which the att orney 38 is admitted to practice of their suspension or administrative suspension ; c. Pa . R.D.E . 217(e), which , in pertinent part, requ ires formerly admitted attorneys to, within 10 days after the effective administrative date of suspension, the i r to suspension file a or verified statement with the Secretary of the Board and serve a copy on Disciplinary Counsel, which is to incl ude averments and information de l ineated by the Rule; and d. Pa.R . D. E. 217(h), which, in pertinent part , requires formerly Board admitted. attorneys the certificate Registration Office to issued under Rule surrender by the 219(e) to the Attorney and any certificates of good standing, admission, licensure, or of limited admission. WHEREFORE , Petitioner prays that your Honorable Board appoint , pursuant to Pa . R. D. E . 205, a Hearing Committee to hear testimony and receive evidence in support of the foregoing charges and upon completion of said hearing to make such findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disciplinary action as it may deem appropriate . 39 Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Paul J. Killion Chief Disciplinary Counsel By: g,~ ~ \J,tif> itql!IJ Kris in . ells . Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Registration No. 312080 Pennsylvania Judicial Center 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 5800 P.O. Box 62675 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106 40 VERIFICATION I, Kristin A. Wells, Disciplinary Counsel , verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition for Discipline are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. KriStinIL Wells Disciplinary Counsel §

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.