No. 424, Disciplinary Docket No. 3
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In the Matter of
RICHARD J. WALTERS
PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 424 , Disciplinary Docket
No. 3 – Supreme Court
No. 76 DB 1998 - Disciplinary Board
Attorney Registration No. 58789
(Allegheny County)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Pursuant to Rule 218(c)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary
Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania submits its
findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with respect to the above-captioned Petition for Reinstatement.
I.
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner, Richard J. Walters, filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the bar of
Pennsylvania on December 29, 2003. Petitioner was suspended for three years by Order
of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated December 14, 2000.
A reinstatement hearing was held on May 24, 2004, before Hearing
Committee 4.07 comprised of Chair Marie Milie Jones, Esquire, and Members Larry D.
Meredith, Esquire, and Jerry A. Johnson, Esquire. Respondent was represented by Dennis
M. Blackwell, Esquire. Respondent testified and presented the testimony of four witnesses.
The Hearing Committee filed a Report on July 15, 2004 and recommended
that Petitioner’s Petition for Reinstatement be granted.
No Briefs were filed by the parties.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting of
September 27, 2004.
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1.
Petitioner is Richard J. Walters. He was born in 1961 and was
admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania in 1990. His current address is 5460 White Oak
Ave., Unit G111, Encino CA 91316.
2.
Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for three years by
Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated December 14, 2000.
3.
In January 1998 in a non-jury trial in Allegheny County, Petitioner was
found guilty but mentally ill of the offenses of harassment by communication, terroristic
threats, and summary harassment arising out of incidents occurring in connection with his
contacts with an adult woman and a Greek Orthodox priest. The incidents occurred in
1997.
4.
On March 25, 1998 Petitioner entered a plea of guilty but mentally ill to
indecent exposure and disorderly conduct after he disrobed and ran though a nuns’
dormitory at a Greek Orthodox monastery shouting in an incoherent manner. This event
happened in April 1997.
5.
After conviction Petitioner was sent to Mayview State Hospital for
evaluation in consideration of sentencing. His discharge diagnosis was bipolar disorder
and marijuana abuse disorder.
6.
Petitioner was sentenced to one year of restrictive intermediate
punishment and seven years of probation. Special conditions included attendance at
treatment session, submission to urinalysis, attendance at outpatient programs, entry into
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and abstention from illegal drugs and alcohol.
7.
Petitioner began treatment in April 1997 with Dr. Marc E. Garfinkel, a
8.
Dr. Garfinkel diagnosed Petitioner as suffering from an acute mixed
psychiatrist.
manic episode with psychotic features that followed years of hypomania, starting in 1993.
9.
Dr. Garfinkel initially prescribed Depakote three times daily, which
worked to control Petitioner’s symptoms.
4
10.
Petitioner has been under the continuous care of Dr. Garfinkel since
11.
Dr. Garfinkel testified at the reinstatement hearing.
12.
Petitioner’s current diagnosis is Bipolar I Disorder, in full remission.
13.
Petitioner continues to take Depakote three times daily. The blood
April 1997.
serum Depakote levels have been consistent during the past years and show that Petitioner
has taken the medication as prescribed.
14.
Petitioner sees Dr. Garfinkel every three to six months, which is the
sufficient amount of times per year for the doctor to monitor Respondent's progress.
15.
Although Petitioner currently lives in California, he continues to use Dr.
Garfinkel as his psychiatrist since Petitioner visits Pittsburgh regularly due to family and
business connections.
16.
Dr. Garfinkel opined that such a long-distance situation was not
unusual, given Petitioner’s stability.
17.
Dr. Garfinkel made clear to Petitioner that if he experienced flare ups
while in California, he would have to seek treatment there.
18.
Petitioner has been entirely compliant with treatment.
19.
Petitioner’s risk of relapse is very low as long as he takes his
medication and abstains from substance abuse.
20.
Dr. Garfinkel did not think that the normal stress of practicing law would
result in Petitioner having another manic episode.
5
21.
Dr. Garfinkel opined that there is no psychiatric or medical reason that
would prevent Petitioner from practicing law.
22.
Three character witnesses testified on behalf of Petitioner. All three
witnesses gave credible testimony.
23.
Mark Flaherty is a Pennsylvania lawyer who was in recovery with
Petitioner. He has known Petitioner since 1998. He described Petitioner as dedicated to
the process of recovery. Mr. Flaherty believes Petitioner’s reinstatement to the practice of
law will not be detrimental to the public interest.
24.
Travis Klein is Petitioner’s recovery sponsor. He has known Petitioner
for more than five years and has spent a lot of time with Petitioner. He believes that
Petitioner is dedicated to his recovery and would be an asset to the legal community if
reinstated.
25.
Father Nicholas Boldireff is a Russian orthodox priest at St. Innocent
Orthodox Church in Tarzana, California, where Petitioner is a congregant. He has known
Petitioner for more than two years and is aware of the facts of Petitioner’s conviction. He
believes that the public interest would not be jeopardized by Petitioner’s return to the
practice of law.
26.
Petitioner completed all of the requirements of his criminal sentence.
He was released early from probation in 2000 by Judge Manning of the Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas.
6
27.
During his suspension Petitioner initially took a temporary position with
Robert Deer, Esquire, an attorney in Pittsburgh, then took a job in construction.
28.
In late 2001 Petitioner moved to California to pursue an acting and
screenwriting career. He has found work as a background extra in various productions,
and is involved in a theater group called the Will Geer Theatricum Botanicum, which
performs for school children, among others.
29.
Petitioner has not pursued any legal employment in California.
30.
Petitioner fulfilled his Continuing Legal Education requirements for
reinstatement to practice law in Pennsylvania.
31.
If reinstated, Petitioner intends to remain in California and sit for that
jurisdiction’s bar examination.
32.
Petitioner is sober and attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at
least once per week.
33.
Petitioner expressed sincere remorse for his past actions. He does
recognize that his mental disorder is a lifelong one and must be continuously maintained by
medication.
III.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
Petitioner has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the
law required to practice law in Pennsylvania.
7
2.
Petitioner’s resumption of the practice of law will be neither detrimental
to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the
public interest.
IV.
DISCUSSION
This matter is before the Disciplinary Board on a Petition for Reinstatement
filed by Richard J. Walters. By Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated
December 14, 2000, Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for three years.
Pursuant to Rule 218(a), Pa.R.D.E., an attorney who is suspended for a
period exceeding one year may not resume the practice of law until reinstated by the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In order for Petitioner to gain reinstatement, he has the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the moral
qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in
this Commonwealth. In addition, Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that his
resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the
bar or administration of justice, nor subversive of the public interest. Rule 218(c)(3)(i),
Pa.R.D.E.
A reinstatement hearing is a searching inquiry into a lawyer’s present
professional and moral fitness to resume the practice of law. The object of concern is not
solely the transgressions which gave rise to the lawyer’s suspension, but rather the nature
and extent of the rehabilitation efforts the lawyer has made since the time the sanction was
8
imposed, and the degree of success achieved in the rehabilitative process. Philadelphia
News, Inc. v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, 363 A.2d 779 (Pa. 1976).
9
Petitioner was convicted of harassment by communication, terroristic threats,
summary harassment, indecent exposure, and disorderly conduct arising out of his conduct
involving the harassment of a young adult woman and an orthodox priest, and his behavior
at a Greek Orthodox monastery. Petitioner’s criminal actions were substantially caused by
substance abuse and bipolar disorder, which at the time of the incidents was undiagnosed.
Petitioner was sentenced to one year of restrictive intermediate punishment and seven
years of probation with numerous restrictive conditions. In 2000 Petitioner’s probation was
terminated early by Judge Manning of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.
Petitioner fulfilled all terms and conditions of his sentence.
Petitioner’s bipolar disorder, although presently in full remission, is incurable
and is a lifelong disease. Petitioner offered credible evidence that he is aware of the impact
and consequences of this disease on his life and has taken every step possible to treat his
disease. He began receiving treatment for bipolar disorder shortly after the criminal
incidents in question. Dr. Marc Garfinkel has been in continuous charge of Petitioner’s
psychiatric treatment and finds that Petitioner has responded very favorably to his
treatment plan of Depakote three times per day.
Dr. Garfinkel keeps apprised of
Petitioner’s progress through laboratory reports of the amount of medication in Petitioner’s
blood serum and through in person office visits every three to six months. Dr. Garfinkel
finds Petitioner to be stable and capable of handling the normal stresses involved with the
practice of law.
10
Two witnesses testified on behalf of Petitioner as to his positive commitment
to recovery from substance abuse. One of these witnesses, Travis Klein, serves as
Petitioner’s sponsor and is intimately aware of Petitioner’s efforts at maintaining sobriety.
Mr. Klein is of the belief that Petitioner is stable in his recovery and would be an asset to
the legal community upon reinstatement.
A Greek Orthodox priest from Petitioner’s church in California testified as to
Petitioner’s good character and his belief that he would not harm the public if reinstated.
This priest was aware of the details of Petitioner’s conviction as it concerned the Greek
Orthodox Church.
Petitioner demonstrated sincere remorse for his misconduct. He understands
the harm and pain he inflicted on his victims. He understands that his ability to avoid
similar instances of harm to himself and others is within his control, that being to continue
his medication regiment, to abstain from drugs and alcohol, and to be aware of symptoms
that might indicate a relapse.
During Petitioner’s suspension he worked for a Pittsburgh lawyer and for a
construction company.
In 2001 he decided to pursue his interests in acting and
screenwriting and moved to California. He has found work there in the theater and as an
acting extra. He has also written a screenplay and is attempting to sell it. Petitioner plans
to remain in California and if reinstated he hopes to sit for the California bar examination.
Petitioner fulfilled all Continuing Legal Education requirements for reinstatement.
11
The Board finds that Petitioner has met with clear and convincing evidence
his burden of proving that he is morally qualified, competent and learned in the law.
Petitioner has successfully addressed the mental health and substance abuse issues which
were the cause of his underlying misconduct.
He has made a concerted effort to
rehabilitate himself and start a new life. Furthermore, the Board finds that Petitioner’s
readmission will not be detrimental to the bar or the public. For these reasons the Board
recommends that Petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law.
12
V.
RECOMMENDATION
The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously
recommends that Petitioner, Richard J. Walters, be reinstated to the practice of law.
The Board further recommends that, pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E.,
Petitioner be directed to pay the necessary expenses incurred in the investigation and
processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.
Respectfully submitted,
THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
By:____________________________
Marvin J. Rudnitsky, Vice-Chair
Date: November 10, 2004
Board Members Pietragallo and Nordenberg did not participate in the September 27, 2004
adjudication.
13
PER CURIAM:
AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2005, upon consideration of the Report
and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
dated November 10, 2004, the Petition for Reinstatement is GRANTED.
Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses
incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.
14
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.
