No. 1745, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1745 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 96 DB 2011 v. Attorney Registration No. 87233 JOHN MARTIN CAHILL, JR., Respondent (Philadelphia) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 161h day of November, 2012, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated August 30, 2012, 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 John Martin Cahill, Jr., is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of three years and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that, at the conclusion of the suspension period, respondent shall pay the costs incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Mr. Justice McCaffery dissents. A True Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 11/16/2012 Att.est: ~}kdd Ch1ef Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. JOHN MARTIN CAHILL, JR. Respondent No. 96 DB 2011 Attorney Registration No. 87233 (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., Gabriel L. Bevilacqua, and Albert Momjian, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter on August 15, 2012. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a three year suspension and recommends to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that the attached Petition be Granted. The Panel further recommends that any necessary expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter shall be paid by the respondent-attorney after the imposition of discipline. Date: August 30, 2012 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1745 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 96 DB 2011 v. Atty. Reg. No. 87233 JOHN MARTIN CAHILL, JR., Respondent (Philadelphia) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) Petitioner, Paul J. Killion, Brumberg, Cahill, Office of Disciplinary Counsel Esquire, Discipline on Disciplinary and Harriet R. Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Disciplinary Counsel, file this Consent and Respondent, Joint under Petition John Martin In Support of Rule of Pennsylvania (ftPa.R. D.E. ") Enforcement (ftODC"), by 215 (d)' and respectfully represent that: I . 1. PA P.O. Petitioner, Judicial Box pursuant Center, 62485, to BACKGROUND whose principal office is located at Suite 2700, Harrisburg, Pa.R.D.E. 207, PA with 601 Commonwealth 17106-2485, the power is and Avenue, invested duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary pro~~~~-[) AUG i 5 2012 2. Respondent, January 25, 1964, John Martin Cahill, Jr., was born on and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on August 23, 2001. 3. the On November 2, Court crime of Common twelve Pleas possession of cocaine), of 35 months P. S. of Pennsylvania Respondent was convicted in of a Philadelphia controlled 780-113 (a) (16), § reporting By counseling. Pa.R.D.E., 2009, Order Supreme Court, substance and was probation dated County of and October pursuant the (crack sentenced to mandatory drug 17, Rule to 2011, the 214(f) (1), referred Respondent's criminal conviction matter to the Disciplinary Board for the institution of a formal proceeding before a hearing committee. 4. subject Pursuant to the to Pa.R.D.E. disciplinary 201(a) (1), 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 6-66, infra. CHARGE I: 6. CRIMINAL CONVICTION At approximately 7:05 p.m. on January 28, 2009, Philadelphia police officer Kevin Wims set up surveillance 2 for illegal narcotics activity at the 1700 block of North Marshall Street, Philadelphia, PA. 7. Officer Wims observed Respondent approach a group of black males, engage them in conversation, and then walk to a vacant lot. 8. One of the males left the group and followed Respondent to the vacant lot. 9. Officer Wims saw Respondent give the male United States currency and the male give Respondent items from a clear plastic baggy. 10. Respondent walked away from the lot and Officer Wims stopped him. 11. Officer Wims searched Respondent and seized three clear plastic ziplock plastic packets, off-white chunky substance, which each containing an was field tested and found to contain a cocaine base. 12. contained The lab test revealed that 55 milligrams of crack controlled substance under 35 P.S. 13. Respondent intentionally possessing violation of 35 P.S. 14. was § § a Schedule II 780-104(2). with packets knowingly of cocaine, and in 780-113(a) (16). On November 2, the Honorable Thomas cocaine, charged three the plastic packets F. 2009, Respondent was tried before Gehret of the Municipal Court of 3 Philadelphia County. v. Commonwea~th John No. MC- Cahi~~, 51-CR-0004550-2009. 15. Judge Gehret found Respondent guilty of 35 P.S. 780-113 (a) (16), imprisonment an for ungraded no more misdemeanor than one punishable year, a fine § by not exceeding $5,000, or both. 16. On Respondent November to twelve 2, 2009, months of Judge Gehret sentenced reporting probation and Respondent appealed his mandatory drug counseling. 17. On conviction December to the 2, Court 2009, of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County; on October 26, 2010, the Court quashed Respondent's appeal. v. John Commonwea~th Cahi~~, No. CP-51-CR-0015153- 2009. 18. Respondent's conviction is a per se basis for discipline under Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) (1). 19. Respondent "serious crime," [revised effective failed to report his conviction of a as Disciplinary Board, defined by 4/18/12], to former the Pa.R.D.E. Secretary 214(i) of as required by former Pa.R.D.E. the 214(a) [revised effective 4/18/12]. 20. 19 above, By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 6 through Respondent violated the following Rule of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement: 4 a. RPC which 8.4(b), professional commit provides misconduct criminal a on adversely for or is lawyer a it to that act the trustworthiness that reflects honesty, lawyer's fitness as a lawyer in other respects; b. 203 (b) (1), Pa.R.D.E. conviction of a which states that crime shall be grounds for discipline; and c. Former Pa.R.D.E. of stated that crime which convicted [revised serious 4/18/12], 214(a) a effective an attorney shall report the fact of such conviction within 20 days to the Secretary of Board. the The responsibility of the attorney to make such report shall not be abated because the conviction is under appeal or the clerk of the court has transmitted a certificate to Disciplinary Counsel pursuant to subdivision (b) [of Rule 214]. CHARGE I I : UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW 21. pay On or before July 1, his annual attorney 2010, Respondent failed to registration fee and file annual registration form as required by Pa.R.D.E. 219. 5 his 22. Order By Supreme Pennsylvania November dated 18, 2010, administratively Court Respondent from the practice of law, the suspended effective thirty days from the date of its Order. 23. On November Registrar sent notifying 18, Respondent 2010, Respondent, of by the the Office certified Supreme of Attorney mail, Court's a letter Order and Respondent's duties pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 217. 24. to On December 14, 2010, the Attorney Registrar sent Respondent, Respondent of by the first class Supreme mail, Court's a Order letter and notifying Respondent's duties pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 217. 25. On December administratively 18, 2010, suspended, and Respondent Respondent became was not reinstated until February 22, 2011. 26. Respondent failed to file a timely Verified Statement of Compliance. 27. While suspension, of law in Respondent Respondent violation was on administrative repeatedly engaged in the practice of the regulation of the legal profession in Pennsylvania. 28. While Respondent was suspension, Respondent wrongly: 6 on administrative represented a. himself as a lawyer able to and advice to on behalf of practice law; a. had personal contact with clients; b. rendered legal consultation clients; appeared c. court at hearings clients; and d. negotiated and transacted matters on behalf of clients with third parties. 29. Upon being administratively suspended, Respondent failed to notify other persons with whom Respondent may at any time expect to have professional contacts under circumstances where there is a reasonable probability that they may infer that Respondent continued to be an attorney in good standing. A. Su Dabiao Matter 30. December On 21, 2010, Respondent filed a Landlord-Tenant Complaint, Non-Military Service Affidavits, and exhibits County Gabrie~, 31. in Su with the Dabiao Jr., LT: Municipal v. Court Ashuakia of Shawnette Philadelphia and Ra£ae~ 10-12-21-5466. Respondent failed to registered or certified mail, notify Ms. Dabiao return receipt requested, 7 by. of Respondent's administrative suspension and Respondent's consequent inability to act as her attorney. 32. On January 2011, 12, Respondent appeared Landlord-Tenant Court to represent Su Dabiao, time Respondent agreement in obtained the a amount judgment of for $450 and 26, 2010, in during which plaintiff judgment a by of possession. B. Jacobson Rodriguez Matter 33. On retained to or before represent matter docketed at August Jacobson Commonwea~th Respondent Rodriguez v. in his was criminal Jacobson Rodriguez, CP- 51-CR-0001818-2010. 34. On November 8, 2010, Respondent appeared before the Honorable Robert P. Coleman, during which time: a. the Court Defendant's entered Motion to an Order Dismiss denying Pursuant to Rule 600; b. the Court increased defendant's bail; c. Mr. Rodriguez was taken into custody; and d. the ¢ Court continued Mr. Rodriguez's case until January 24, 2011. 35. 18, Upon being administratively suspended on December 2010, Respondent failed to promptly Rodriguez by registered or certified mail, 8 notify Mr. return receipt requested, of Respondent's administrative suspension and Respondent's consequent inability to act as an attorney. 36. Respondent failed to file a motion to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Rodriguez. 37. On January 24, removed Respondent case due appointed to 2011, Honorable Adam Beloff from handling Mr. Respondent's the the Defender Rodriguez's administrative Association of criminal suspension and Philadelphia to represent Mr. Rodriguez. C. Candice Christy Matter 38. On or before retained to represent matter docketed at July Candice Commonwea~th 14, 2009, Christy v. Respondent in her was criminal Candice Christy, CP-51- CR-0000829-2009. 39. On October 12, 2010, Ms. Christy failed to appear for her scheduled hearing and Judge Coleman issued a bench warrant for Ms. Christy. 4 0. On October 2 6, 2010, Judge Coleman entered an Order lifting the bench warrant. 41. The Court scheduled Ms. Christy's matter for a hearing on February 3, 2011. 42. Upon being administratively suspended on December 18, 2010, Respondent failed to promptly notify Ms. Christy, by registered or certified mail, 9 return receipt requested, of Respondent's transfer to inactive status and his consequent inability to act as an attorney. 43. Respondent failed to file a motion to withdraw as counsel for Ms. Christy. 44. On February 3, 2011, Respondent appeared before the Honorable Adam Beloff to represent Ms. Christy, during which time: a. Ms. Christy failed to appear; b. Respondent attempted to address the Court regarding Ms. Christy's whereabouts; c. Judge Beloff speak instructed because Respondent not Respondent to was administratively suspended; and d. Judge Beloff explained that once Ms. Christy was located, he would remove Respondent as counsel for Ms. Christy. 45. Prior to February 8, 2011, Ms. Christy was located and the Court scheduled a hearing on her matter for February 8, 2011. 46. On February 8, 2011, Judge Beloff: a. lifted Ms. Christy's bench warrant; b. removed Respondent Christy; 10 as counsel for Ms. c. appointed Mingo Strober, Esquire, as counsel case April for Ms. Christy; and d. continued Ms. Christy's to 20, 2011. D. A Bobs Auto and Towing Matter 47. On October 13, 2010, Respondent filed a Notice of Summary Appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County on behalf of A Bobs Auto and Towing in CommonweaLth v. A Bobs Auto and Towing, CP-09-SA-0000754-2010. 48. Upon being administratively suspended on December 18, 2010, Towing Respondent failed to promptly notify A Bobs Auto by registered requested, of or certified Respondent's mail, administrative return receipt suspension and Respondent's consequent inability to act as an attorney. 49. counsel Respondent failed to file a motion to withdraw as for A Bobs Auto and Towing upon Respondent's administrative suspension. 50. On December 27, 2010, the Court scheduled A Bobs Auto and Towing's matter for a hearing on February 4, 2011. 51. On February 4, 2011, Respondent appeared in Court on behalf of A Bobs Auto and Towing, during which time: a. Respondent introduced Honorable Clyde W. Waite; 11 himself to the b. Respondent advised the Court that Respondent was withdrawing the and Towing and appeal of A Bobs Auto pleading guilty to all citations in exchange for court costs being placed on the county; and c. the Court accepted the plea and adjudged A Bobs Auto and Towing guilty. E. Joobeen Matter 52. On March complaint in v. Micbae~ 30, 2005, Orang Joobeen, Tsokas Respondent Cei~ and Aaron CP No. a A~i and Joobeen, Pogacb, filed 3 6 0 9, civil Joobeen March Term, 2005 (Philadelphia County) . 53. On May 15, 2007, Respondent filed a Withdrawal of Appearance on behalf of Ali Joobeen only. 54. Allen On December 15, 2008, the Honorable Jacqueline F. denied Judgment as untimely Ali of Non Pros Joobeen' s entered in favor Motion to Strike of Mr. Pogach on September 5, 2008. 55. of Appeal On January 15, from the 2009, Court' s Ali Joobeen filed a Notice December 15, 2008 Order; on February 2, 2009, the Superior Court docketed the appeal at No. 349 EDA 2009. 56. Respondent received appeal. 12 notice of Ali Joobeen's 57. 18, Upon being administratively suspended on December 2010, Respondent failed to promptly notify Ceil Joobeen and Orang Joobeen by registered or certified mail, receipt requested, of Respondent's return administrative suspension and Respondent's consequent inability to act as an attorney. 58. Respondent failed to file a motion to withdraw as counsel for Ceil Joobeen and Orang Joobeen. 59. through of By 58 his above, Professional conduct as Respondent Conduct alleged in paragraphs violated the and Rules following of 21 Rules Disciplinary Enforcement: a. RPC 5.5(a), which states that a lawyer shall not practice violation law of profession the in in a jurisdiction regulation that of jurisdiction, the or in legal assist another in doing so; b. RPC 8.4(c), professional engage in which states misconduct conduct for that a involving it is lawyer to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; c. RPC 8.4(d), professional which states misconduct 13 for that a it is lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; d. Pa.R.D.E. states which 203(b) (3), that wilful violation of any other provision of the Enforcement Rules, discipline, charged the via in shall be grounds for Enforcement subsections Rules through (e) ( k) ' infra: e. Pa.R.D.E. formerly admitted notify, or states which 217(b), attorney cause shall be to all pending litigation proceedings, for each the adverse proceeding, of the administrative attorney in or such disbarment, suspension involved in administrative or party by return receipt clients who are and a promptly notified, registered or certified mail, requested, that or attorneys matter or suspension, transfer to inactive status and consequent inability of the formerly admitted attorney to act as an attorney after the effective disbarment, suspension, suspension or transfer to date of the administrative inactive status. The notice to be given to the client shall 14 advise the attorney prompt or formerly attorneys admitted client the counsel admitted agency for attorney to in which to to the attorney shall residence of the event substitute of it the in the court is client the of to be for an place the or pending notice attorneys state shall formerly the The or the the date proceeding party adverse of withdraw. of status, move the another administrative or transfer to leave given effective responsibility the In obtain not the of place suspension, disbarment, be in attorney. does before suspension substitution of formerly admitted attorney; f. Pa.R.D.E. formerly notify, admitted or cause suspension attorney to be or transfer registered or receipt requested: shall to a promptly notified, of the administrative inactive certified (1) that states suspension, disbarment, by which 217(c), mail, status, return all persons or their agents or guardians to whom a fiduciary duty is or may be owed 15 at any time after the suspension and (2) expect or transfer all formerly other to have inactive persons with professional where probability that continues standing. as whom the any time required for admitted contacts is a under reasonable in attorney an responsibility admitted continue there status, they may infer that he or The formerly notice to admitted attorney may at circumstances she administrative suspension, disbarment, attorney by this as attorney administratively as provide or the shall formerly the disbarred, suspended the of subdivision long is to good suspended, on inactive status; g. Pa.R.D.E. 217(e), ten after days Order, file or effective transfer that date within of the administrative to inactive status the formerly admitted attorney shall with the and complied Board ( 1) showing: Order the states suspension, disbarment, suspension which that these with; 16 and a the rules (2) verified statement provisions have all been other of the fully state, federal and administrative which such person Such statement is or other admitted attorney to admitted to practice. shall residence jurisdictions also set address where forth of the the formerly communications to such person may thereafter be directed; h. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j) (1), law-related admitted which activities attorney states of shall the be that all formerly conducted under the supervision of a member in good standing of the Bar of this Commonwealth who shall be responsible admitted for ensuring attorney requirements of that the complies this formerly with subdivision the (j). If the formerly admitted attorney is engaged by a law legal firm or services, other whether other relationship, or organization firm or organization providing by employment or an attorney of the firm shall be organization designated by as the the supervising attorney for purposes of this subdivision; i. Pa.R.D.E. 217(j) (2), which states that a formerly admitted attorney may not engage in any form of law-related 17 activities in this Cormnonwealth following this subdivision accordance (i) only may be conducted necessary of pleadings, attorney (ii) the or third by direct a similar cormnunication parties member and documents, other paragraph accompanying the information, and documents; permitted a assembly of transactional briefs, client by are legal research, other drafting law-related legal work of a preparatory such as and of the admitted following: the purposes For with ( j) , that formerly nature, in requirements: activities data except in to the extent and ( 3) ; good with (iii) standing of the Bar of this Commonwealth to a deposition or other discovery matter or to a meeting regarding a matter that is not currently in litigation, for the limited purpose of providing ·clerical assistance to the member in good standing who appears as the representative of the client; j. Pa.R.D.E. formerly 217(j) (3), admitted cormnunication with 18 which attorney a client states may or have that a direct third party regarding a matter being · handled by the attorney, organization or firm for which the formerly admitted attorney works only if the communication matters such updates, of is limited as to ministerial scheduling, billing, confirmation of receipt or sending correspondence formerly admitted indicate and messages. attorney The shall clearly in any · such communication that he or she is a legal assistant and identify the supervising attorney; and k. Pa.R.D.E. and 217(j)(4)(iv), ( ix) , which (v), state (vi), that a (vii), formerly admitted attorney may not engage in any form of law-related Commonwealth activities in accordance following requirements: Without the restrictions other (j ) , a except in formerly in this admitted this with the limiting subdivision attorney is specifically prohibited from engaging in any of the following activities: (iv) representing himself or herself as a lawyer or person of similar status; (v) having any contact in person, with clients 19 either by telephone, in or in writing, paragraph consultation (vi) ( 3) ; or except as provided advice rendering to a legal client; (vii) appearing on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, agency, referee, magistrate, or other any (ix) and matter third adjudicative negotiating for court, public hearing officer person or on behalf of parties or having regarding body; transacting or third parties or a client with contact any such any with a negotiation or transaction. CHARGE III: 60. certified On November 3, mail, with DB-7 ANSWER 2011, a DB-7 ODC served Respondent, Request for via Statement of Respondent's Position. 61. received On November and signed 12, the 2011, certified Respondent mail, personally return receipt card. 62. Respondent failed to submit an answer to the DB-7 Request within 30 days as mandated by Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) (7). 20 63. On December 15, 2011, ODC sent Respondent, via first class mail, a letter reminding Respondent of his duty to comply with Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) (7). 64. Respondent received the reminder letter. 65. Respondent again failed to submit a DB-7 Answer. 66. By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 60 through 65 above, Respondent violated the following Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement: Pa.R.O.E. a. failure good 203(b)(7), by a cause Counsel's under which states respondent-attorney to respond request Disciplinary or to without Disciplinary supplemental Board that Rules, § request 87.7(b) for a statement of the respondent-attorney's position, shall be grounds for discipline. III. JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE 67. the Petitioner and Respondent appropriate discipline for jointly recommend that Respondent's admitted misconduct is a three-year suspension. 68. being Respondent imposed by Attached to Affidavit required consents to this the hereby the consents Supreme Petition by Pa.R.D.E. is Court the of discipline Pennsylvania. Respondent's 215(d), recommended discipline 21 to stating executed that and including he th~ mandatory acknowledgements contained in Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) (1) through (4). 69. Petitioner and Respondent respectfully submit that there are the following aggravating factors: a. Respondent has the CommonweaLth v. 2010, Court County following No. CP-51-SA-0003468- CahiLL, of Common 31, (May convictions: 2010 Pleas, Philadelphia arrest) (November 18, 2010, conviction for Failure to Stop at a Red Signal, Driving While Operating are Suspended or Revoked, a Safety Belt); No. and Failure to Use and CommonweaLth v. MC-51-CR-0557811-2005, Philadelphia Privileges County arrest) (January 20, CahiLL, Municipal (June 2006, Court, 4, guilty 2005 plea to Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct). b. Respondent has to: $8' 871.59 pay open Lancaster County v. judgments child in CahiLL, PACESES Case ID 218112012, (October 2010); pay city 19, taxes of file $5,082, CahiLL, No. Court, Philadelphia No. failing support, 2010-03227, Lancaster County a tax return and PhiLadeLphia CE-07-10-76-0101, 22 for County; v. Municipal pay his $6, 138. 83 student loan, Cahi1.1., v. Corp. Municipal Court, 2007 default SLM Education Loan, SC-06-11-17-6027, No. Philadelphia County and judgment); (May 1, pay seven Traffic Court judgments, totaling $1,442. c. Respondent charges has were four arrests withdrawn: Cahi1.1., No. Court, Philadelphia for which Commonweal. th MC-51-CR-0002357-2010, County v. Municipal (January 16, 2010) (Respondent charged with Simple Assault and Recklessly charges Endangering withdrawn on January Commonweal.th v. 0009265-2009, Municipal County charged Cahi1.1., (February with Theft Movable Property, Receiving Stolen Use Motor of charges a 27, By on Commonweal.th v. 0011742-2008, Municipal County 26, (July 23 2011); MC-51-CRPhiladelphia Unlawful or Taking of Conspiracy, and Unauthorized Other April Cahi1.1., 3, No. Court, Vehicles; 2009); MC-51-SU- Philadelphia 2008) (Respondent with Criminal Mischief; Person; 2009) (Respondent Criminal Vehicle 20, No. Court, Property, withdrawn Another charged charges withdrawn on February 10, No. 2010); Commonwea~th MC-51-CR-0051661-2007, Philadelphia County Municipal (November 2007) Attempted Arson; charged with Attempt Cause Catastrophe; Mischief; a Court, 4, (Respondent to Cahi~~~ v. Attempted Possession of Instrument of Crime; Terroristic Threats with Intent to Terrorize Anothe.r; Simple Assault; Endangering Another Prevent Person; Catastrophe; Recklessly and charges Failure to withdrawn on March 28, 2008). 70. Respondent and ODC respectfully submit that there is the following mitigating factor: virtue of Discipline a. By on expressed Respondent's recognition of this Respondent Consent, signing has his violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 71. Attorneys who unauthorized practice of engage knowingly law, even for a in the short period of time, receive a suspension of one-year-and-one-day. e.g., Office Discip~inary No. 131 DB of 1999, 2/23/2001) (where while on D.Bd. attorney inactive Co=se~ Rpt. 24 Regina~d 2/7/2001 practiced attorney v. law status See, Ho~der, (S.Ct. Order three months for [now known as Administrative Suspension], Supreme attorney for one year and one day) . Court suspended A one-year-and-one-day suspension is also imposed when an attorney's unauthorized practice of law is limited Disciplinary Counsel v. D.Bd. of Rpt. one 4/16/2004 year unauthorized and day practice scope. Chauncey Harris, (S.Ct. one in of No. 150 DB 2002, Order 7/15/2004) (a imposed law on was an limited o£ suspension attorney to one whose client The Disciplinary Board has explained that a one- matter) . year-and-one-day suspension is the discipline, appropriate quantum of despite an attorney's good reputation and lack of a disciplinary record, the O££ice unauthorized because the Supreme Court finds practice of law to be O££ice o£ Disciplinary Counsel v. Forrest, No. 72 Pa. D.&C. 4ili 339 contemptuous. 134 DB 2003, (2004) (attorney who handled two client matters knowing he had been placed on inactive status was suspended for one year and one day) . 72. been A suspension of imposed when one an attorney year is (S.Ct. Mi.mnagh, Order No. 5/5/2008), found 185 DB 2006, an Board D.Bd. Rpt. attorney recommended 25 also in possession of was purchasing two bags of crack cocaine from a Disciplinary day has In O££ice o£ Disciplinary crack cocaine for personal use. Counsel v. and one a 11/27/2007 convicted client. of The one-year-and-one-day suspension because Mimnagh's conduct, while an isolated incident in his legal career, lessened public confidence in the legal profession. In Office D.&C. 3d 188 ounce of Discip~inary of v. 33 Ness, Pa. an attorney who received one-quarter (1984), cocaine Counse~ as a wedding gift and pled guilty to simple possession, received a suspension of one year, which at the time required a formal reinstatement hearing. The Disciplinary Board reasoned that a meaningful sanction was necessary "to deter [Ness's] pattern of irresponsibility Id. at which was detrimental to the interests of justice." 190. After 73. Respondent knowingly unauthorized papers, being practice appearing in administratively engaged of in law, court, suspended, repeated instances including negotiating filing with of legal opposing counsel, and holding himself out to third parties as being an attorney in good standing. file a Board. and timely Verified Statement suspension of cocaine of Compliance with the Based on applicable precedent, Respondent's knowing repeated reveals Respondent also failed to unauthorized practice one year and one day. that Respondent's warrants an of law warrants a Applicable precedent conviction for possessing crack additional 26 one-year suspension. Accordingly, Respondent should receive a suspension of at least two years for this misconduct. 74. Respondent's failures to submit a DB-7 answer (as mandated by Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) (7)) and to report his criminal conviction (as mandated by Pa.R.D.E. 214(a)) combined with Respondent's arrest record and open judgments aggravate the recommended discipline by an additional year. suspension would be a meaningful A three-year sanction to deter Respondent's pattern of misconduct and protect the public. 75. WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent respectfully request that: a. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 215(e) and 215(g), the three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board review and Support of approve the Discipline Joint on Petition Consent and in file its recommendation with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recommending that the Supreme Court enter an Order that Respondent receive a three-year suspension; and b. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 215(i), the three- member panel of the Disciplinary Board enter an Order for Respondent to pay the necessary expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter as a condition to 27 the grant expenses be imposition of the paid of Petition, by and Respondent discipline that all before the under Pa.R.D.E. 215 (g) . Respectfully and jointly submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL By Date =--~,w ~~ ,2___ By Date 28 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1745 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 96 DB 2011 v. Atty. Reg. No. 87233 JOHN MARTIN CAHILL, JR., Respondent (Philadelphia) VERIFICATION The Petition 215(d), statements In Support Pa.R.D.E., contained of in Discipline the on foregoing Consent Joint Under Rule are true and correct to the best of our knowledge or information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to falsification to authorities. Date arriet R. Brumberg Disciplinary Counsel unsworn BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1745 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 96 DB 2011 v. Atty. Reg. No. 87233 JOHN MARTIN CAHILL, JR., Respondent (Philadelphia) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Respondent, that he John consents Martin Cahill, the imposition to Jr., of hereby a states three-year suspension, and further states that: 1. he is His not consent being is freely subjected to and voluntarily rendered; coercion or duress; he is fully aware of the implications of submitting the consent; and he has not consulted with counsel in connection with the decision to consent to discipline; 2. He is aware that there is presently pending a proceeding involving allegations that he has been guilty of misconduct as set forth in the Joint Petition; 3. He acknowledges that the material facts set forth in the Joint Petition are true; and 4. continue He knows that if the charges pending against him to be prosecuted in the pending proceeding, could not successfully defend aga· st t Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2 he

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.