No. 1660, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1660 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 43 DB 2012 v. Attorney Registration No. 88151 SCOTT PHILIP SIGMAN, Respondent (Philadelphia) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 281h day of February, 2013, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated December 7, 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 Scott Philip Sigman is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of thirty months and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. A True Cop}' Patricia Nicola As Of 2/28/2013 Attest:~"~ ChiefCie~ ' Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 43 DB 2012 v. Atty. Reg. No. 88151 SCOTT PHILIP SIGMAN, (Philadelphia) Respondent JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Petitioner, J. Killion, Richard Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Esquire, Hernandez, Chief Esquire, Counsel, Disciplinary Counsel, represented by S. Rosenberg, Esquire, file this Joint Petition In Support Of Discipline Under Pennsylvania and is and Barbara Esquire, who by Scott Consent Sigman, and Respondent, On Philip Disciplinary by Paul Martin Rule of Enforcement 215 (d) ("the Joint Petition"), L. Trichon, Disciplinary and respectfully represent that: 1. Petitioner, whose principal office is located at Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Avenue, P.O. Box 62485, Suite 2700, Harrisburg, 601 Commonwealth Pennsylvania, is invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereinafter "Pa.R.D.E."), with Fl LED NOV 1 9 2012 OHice of t.h0 Secr~>tc.ry rhe Disciplinarv Eoard nf fha Sllpre-me Ct..'tJrt 01 PunnsY~v~·.~lt'l .. the power and duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law Pennsylvania and to prosecute all in the Commonwealth of disciplinary various brought proceedings provisions of in accordance Rules said of with the Disciplinary Enforcement. 2. Respondent, Scott Philip Sigman, was born on September 27, 1974, and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth on December 3 , registration records, 1515 Street, Market 2 0 01 . According to attorney Respondent's Suite 1360, office is located Philadelphia, PA at 19102- 1934. 3. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 201(a) (1), Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court. 4. On March 15, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Discipline against Respondent with the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board ("the Secretary"). 5. counsel, on April filed 30, an Answer 2012, to the with the Secretary. 2 Respondent, Petition through for his Discipline SPECIFIC FACTUAL ADMISSIONS AND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VIOLATED 6. Respondent hereby stipulates that factual allegations, which incorporate almost factual allegations Discipline, set forth in the following all of the Petition the for are true and correct and that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth herein. CHARGE 7. From July 5, 2005 through March 6, 2009, Respondent was employed as an associate in the law office of Bochetto & Lentz, P. C. ( "B&L"), located at 1524 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 8. During Respondent's employment with B&L, Respondent knew that: a. Respondent was prohibited from handling any client matters independent of his employment with B&L. b. Respondent was prohibited from handling any client matters that were not approved by George Bochetto, Esquire. c. Respondent was prohibited from referring client matters or prospective client matters to another attorney or approved by Mr. Bochetto. 3 law firm unless d. Respondent was required to pay to B&L any referral fees he received for any client or client prospective matters were that referred to other counsel. e. Respondent was prohibited from declining to accept a client matter that would be handled by B&L without the approval of Mr. Bochetto. f. Respondent was prohibited retainer or fee to a from charging a client or prospective client without the approval of Mr. Bochetto. g. For cases that Respondent originated, he was to receive 20% of the fees received by B&L for criminal cases and hourly paid cases, and 33 and 1/3% of the fees received by B&L for contingent fee cases. h. At all times Respondent was to conduct himself with honesty and transparency and to exhibit absolute loyalty to B&L. i. Respondent was required to record the time he spent on client files, as well as time he spent on non-client matters related to his employment at B&L. 4 that were 1. In 9. early retained Daniel THE FURMAN CASE February 2007, Louis Cevallos, Ms. Esquire, Rachel Furman to represent her in an appeal of the suspension of her license ("the Furman case") . a. Mr. Cevallos's fee for the representation was $1,250.00. 10. Respondent and Mr. Cevallos knew one another from Mr. Cevallos's prior employment with B&L. 11. Mr. Cevallos had a conflict in his schedule that prevented him from appearing on behalf of Ms. Furman at the February 7, 2007 hearing for the Furman case. 12. Mr. Cevallos contacted Respondent to inquire if Respondent could appear in his stead at the hearing for the Furman case. 13. Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Furman at the February 7, 2007 hearing for the Furman case. 14. Respondent appeared at the February 7, 2007 hearing of the Furman case and was successful in obtaining a favorable result on behalf of Ms. Furman. 15. Respondent alia, By e-mail dated February and copied to Mr. thanked Respondent for Cevallos, his 5 7, 2007' Ms. sent Furman, to inter service and inquired if she should contact Mr. Cevallos regarding payment or provide Respondent with her credit card information. 16. Respondent received this e-mail. 17. On the "Daily Time Log" during his employment at B&L, Respondent Respondent maintained listed "1. 4" as time spent on the Furman case for February 7, 2007. 18. Bochetto Respondent to did provide not legal obtain approval services to from Ms. Furman Mr. in connection with the Furman case. 19. had Respondent failed to advise Mr. agreed to provide legal services Bochetto that he to Ms. Furman in connection with the Furman case. 20. By check dated May 18, 2007, Mr. Cevallos paid to Respondent the sum of $600.00 for his representation of Ms. Furman at the hearing for the Furman case. a. Mr. Cevallos mailed this check to Respondent at Respondent's 117 N. then 15th Street, residence Apt. 1005, located at Philadelphia, PA 19102. 21. Respondent received this check. 22. Respondent negotiated funds. 23. Respondent failed to: 6 this check and used the a. notify from Mr. Mr. Bochetto that Cevallos a services Respondent he had received payment $600.00 rendered to Ms. for Furman; and b. present Mr. the check he $600.00 Cevallos to Mr. received Bochetto or Mr. from Lentz for deposit into B&L's operating account. B&L 24. payment Ms. was entitled that Respondent Furman, to from $480.00 the received for services $600.00 rendered to after deducting Respondent's share of the fee, which was $120.00, or 20% of the $600.00 payment. 25. 24 By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 1.15 (a) (effective effective shall third persons possession lawyer which 9/20/08), lawyer hold property that in 4/23/05, is connection relationship lawyer's own property. superseded states of in with separate that clients a a or lawyer's a client- from the Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt, 7 maintenance and disposition of such property shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of relationship after or disposition of client-lawyer the the distribution property, or whichever is later; b. RPC 1.15 (b) (effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that upon receiving property of client or third person in connection a with a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client third person, deliver to a the lawyer client shall or promptly or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or render a third full person, accounting shall promptly regarding such property; and c. RPC 8.4(c), professional which states misconduct 8 for that a it lawyer is to engage in involving conduct dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. 2, 26. THE WOOD CASE On September 17, 24, and 25, 2007, Respondent met with Mr. Kris Wood, a prospective client. 27. The time records Respondent kept during his employment at B&L show that Respondent met with Mr. Wood on September 17, 24, and 25, 2007. 2 8. Mr. Wood needed legal assistance in forming a company. 29 . Respondent ref erred Mr . Wood's case to Mr. Cevallos. 3 0. Respondent failed to obtain the approval of Mr. Bochetto to refer Mr. Wood's case to Mr. Cevallos. 31. Respondent failed to advise Mr. Bochetto that he had referred Mr. Wood's case to Mr. Cevallos. 32. By check dated October 3, 2007, Mr. Cevallos paid to Respondent the sum of $1,500.00 as a referral fee for Mr. Wood's case. 33. Respondent negotiated funds. 34. Respondent failed to: 9 this check and used the a. notify Mr. from Mr. Bochetto Cevallos that a he had $1,500.00 received referral fee for Mr. Wood's case; and b. present the $1,500.00 check he received from Mr. Cevallos to Mr. Bochetto for deposit into B&L's operating account. 35. B&L was entitled to $1,000.00 from the $1,500.00 referral fee that Respondent received from Mr. Cevallos. 36. 8 and By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through through 26 35, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 1. 15 (a) (effective effective 9/20/08), lawyer shall third persons possession lawyer hold in 4/23/05, which states property that is connection relationship superseded of in clients a with a or lawyer's a separate lawyer's own property. that client- from the Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt, and disposition preserved for a termination of period of of 10 such the maintenance property shall be five years after client-lawyer relationship or disposition of after distribution property, the or whichever is later; b. RPC 1.15 (b) (effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that upon receiving property of or third person in connection a client with a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third stated in this Rule person. Except as or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, deliver to lawyer a the client shall promptly or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or render a third full person, accounting shall promptly regarding such property; and c. RPC 8.4(c), professional engage in which states misconduct conduct for involving that to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. 11 is lawyer a it 3. 37. In Norcross") son, November retained THE NORCROSS CASE 2007, Mr. Respondent Carmen Norcross ("Mr. Howard and B&L Norcross to ( "Mr. represent Carmen Norcross") , his in criminal cases filed in the Philadelphia Municipal Court, said cases captioned Commonwealth o:f Pennsylvania v. Docket Nos. MC 51-CR-0040108-2007 and Carmen Norcross, 51-CR-0040109-2007 ("the Norcross case"). a. Mr. Bochetto approved of Mr. Sigman's handling of the Norcross case. b. Mr. Norcross paid a $2, 500. oo flat fee for the representation of Carmen Norcross at the preliminary hearing. c. Respondent received $500.00 from B&L because he originated the Norcross case. 38. On January 17, 2008, a preliminary hearing was held on the Norcross case at docket number 51-CR-00401082007. a. Carmen Norcross charges assault, of was held aggravated recklessly for court assault, endangering on the simple another person, and criminal conspiracy. b. A Common Pleas case was created and docketed 12 at CP-51-CR-0000700-2008. 39. on January 30, 2008, the Norcross case at docket number 51-CR-0040109-2007 was withdrawn. 40. Sometime Norcross in that B&L in order $10, 000.00 May 2008, required to Respondent an continue additional to represent told payment Mr. Mr. of Carmen Norcross. 41. On or about May 27, 2008, Mr. Norcross presented to Respondent bank check number 036-41480, in the amount of $5,000.00, drawn on Commerce Bank, made payable to B&L. a. Respondent check told Mr. should Respondent have and Norcross been that made requested that the bank payable he to obtain another bank check. 42. obtained $5, 000.00, Mr. Norcross followed Respondent's directions and bank check number 036-41491, drawn on Commerce Bank, in the amount of made payable to "Scott Sigman, Esquire." 43. on or about May 28, 2008, Mr. Norcross presented to Respondent bank check number 036-41491. a. In the Norcross "RE:" portion hand Fees. 11 13 wrote of the the words check, Mr. "Attorney 44. On June 2, 2008, Respondent deposited bank check number 036-41491 into a personal bank account he maintained with a financial institution. 45. Respondent used the $5,000.00 he received from Mr. Norcross. 46. Respondent failed to: a. notify Mr. from Mr. Bochetto that he had Norcross an additional received payment of $5,000.00; and b. present the $5,000.00 check he received from Mr. into Norcross to B&L' s Mr. Bochetto operating for account deposit trust or account. 47. From November 8, Respondent recorded 2007 through December 16, time he spent on the Norcross 2008, case while employed at B&L. a. Respondent received did an not record additional that $5,000.00 he had payment from Mr. Norcross. 48. On August 12, 2008, . Mr. Carmen guilty to the charges of aggravated assault conspiracy. 14 Norcross pled and criminal 4 9. Based on the negotiated guilty plea, Mr. Carmen Norcross was sentenced by the Honorable Michael Erdos to a period months, of incarceration to be followed of six by a months to probationary twenty-three term of four years. 50. Sometime employment at in late March 2009, B&L ceased, Mr. after Respondent's Norcross spoke on the refund of the telephone with Mr. Bochetto. a. Mr. Norcross requested a $5,000.00 payment. b. Mr. Bochetto told Mr. unaware of a made by Mr. Norcross that he was $5, 000.00 payment having been Norcross to B&L, which was in fact the case. c. Mr. Norcross events related surrounding to the Mr. Bochet to $5,000.00 the payment received by Respondent from Mr. Norcross. 51. Following Mr. telephone conversation, bookkeeper for B&L and Norcross Mr. and Bochet to confirmed that Mr. spoke the Bochetto's with firm the had not received a $5,000.00 payment from Mr. Norcross. 52. Thereafter, Mr. Bochetto sent to Respondent an e- mail regarding his telephone conversation with Mr. Norcross 15 and requested an explanation. 53. Mr. Respondent, Bochetto received during which call a telephone Respondent call from stated that Mr. Norcross "is crazy, he never paid $5,000." 54. Immediately thereafter, Respondent contacted Mr. Norcross by telephone. a. Respondent asked Mr. Norcross why he had was unaware contacted his former employer. b. Mr. Norcross answered that Respondent B&L, and was explained that no he longer that he employed at was seeking Norcross not a refund. c. Respondent directed Mr. to contact B&L. d. Respondent told Mr. Norcross that he would provide Mr. Norcross with a refund. 55. After Mr. Bochetto received Respondent's reply to Mr. Bochetto's e-mail, Mr. Bochetto decided to contact Mr. Norcross by telephone. a. Mr. Norcross recent conveyed to Mr. Bochetto telephone conversation and Norcross, Respondent Respondent's Mr. directive 16 that Mr. the between including Norcross refrain from contacting B&L. b. Mr. Norcross reiterated to Mr. events Bochetto the surrounding Respondent's $5,000.00 payment, the a second $5, 000.00 of including Respondent's instruction to Mr. secure receipt Norcross to bank check made payable to Respondent. 56. On March 27, 2009, Respondent met with Mr. Norcross. a. Respondent told Mr. Norcross that he would refund the sum of $2,500.00. b. Respondent presented Mr. Norcross with a letter that he had prepared, dated March 27, 2009, which memorialized an agreement between Respondent and Mr. Norcross that Mr. Norcross would receive refund a from Respondent in the amount of $2,500.00. c. Mr. Norcross $2,500.00 was refund; dissatisfied therefore, hand-wrote on the March 27, by June 30, 2009, he with the Respondent 2009 letter that would refund to Mr. Norcross the additional amount of $1,500.00. d. Respondent and Mr. Norcross signed the March 17 27, 2009 letter. e. Respondent refunded to Mr. Norcross the sum of $2,500.00. 57. In July 2009, Respondent paid Mr. Norcross the additional sum of $1,500.00. 58. B&L was entitled to $800.00 from the $1,000 fee payment that Respondent received from Mr. Norcross, after deducting the $4, 000.00 refund that Respondent provided to Mr. Norcross; Respondent's share of the fee was $200.00, or 20% of the $1,000.00 fee payment. 59. 8 and By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 37 through 58, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 1.15(a) (effective effective 9/20/08) lawyer shall third persons possession lawyer hold in 4/23/05, which 1 property that is connection relationship superseded states clients of in a with separate lawyer's own property. that a or lawyer's a client- from the Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt, maintenance and disposition 18 of such property shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of relationship or disposition of client-lawyer the after the or distribution property, whichever is later; b. RPC 1.15(b)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that upon receiving property of client or third person in connection a with a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, deliver to a the lawyer client shall promptly or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or render a third· full person, accounting shall promptly regarding such property; and c. RPC 8.4(c), professional which states misconduct 19 for it is lawyer to that a engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. 4. 60. During THE RAYZ REFERRAL Respondent's employment with B&L, Respondent knew that for cases that an associate attorney originated that were referred by another attorney, the associate attorney typically would receive 8% of the fees received by B&L and the referring attorney would receive 20% of the fees received by B&L, with the client's approval. 61. By e-mail dated April 2007, 6, sent to Respondent, Arkady (Eric) Rayz, Esquire, inter alia: a. advised Respondent that he had referred to Respondent a potential client by the name of Anthony Barg; and b. explained that he had a conflict that prevented him from handling Mr. Barg's legal matter. 62. By e-mail dated April 6, 2007, sent to Mr. Rayz, Respondent, inter alia: a. thanked him for the referral; b. advised referral him that fee on 20 Respondent the case would if pay we "a get retained"; and c. mentioned that Respondent had met with Mr. Barg at noon that day and intended to send Mr. Barga retainer agreement. 63. Respondent obtained Mr. Bochetto's approval to have B&L represent Mr. Barg. 64. Respondent failed to disclose to Mr. Bochetto that: a. Mr. Barg had been referred to Respondent by Mr. Rayz; and b. Respondent had promised Mr. Rayz a referral fee. 65. By e-mail dated April 9, with 2007, a subject heading of "New File Open requests - Anthony Barg," sent to Barbara Stewart, the bookkeeper for B&L, Respondent, inter alia: a. provided Mr. Barg' s address, telephone, and credit card information; b. designated himself as the attorney responsible for originating the file; and c. indicated the firm's receipt of a $5,000.00 retainer through a credit card payment. 66. Respondent failed to 21 disclose to Ms. Stewart that: a. Mr. Barg had been referred to Respondent by Mr. Rayz; and b. Respondent had promised Mr. Rayz a referral fee. 67. By e-mail dated August 8, 2007, sent to Ms. Stewart, Respondent, inter alia: a. requested that she open a new file to be titled "Tony Barg- Partnership"; b. advised her that the contact information for Mr. Barg remained the same; and c. designated himself as the attorney responsible for originating the file. 68. heading By e-mail dated January 28, of "Re: Barg/Allied Credit 2008, with a subject Cards," sent to Ms. Stewart, Respondent, inter alia: a. provided the B&L account number, statement number, balance figure,- and adjusted balance figure; b. requested that Ms. Stewart charge Mr. Barg's credit card $3,893.16, adjusted balance figure, as "Paid in Full"; and 22 which was the and mark the file c. reminded her that he was to receive a 20% origination payment. 69. During the period that B&L represented Mr. in his legal matter, Mr. Barg Barg paid B&L attorney fees and costs in the amount of $34,397.14. a. Exclusive of costs, B&L was paid $32,409.67 as attorney fees. 70. Respondent received $6,580.95 as origination compensation in connection with Mr. Barg's legal matter. a. Due to an error made by B&L, Respondent received from B&L $99.02 more in origination compensation based on a 20% calculation received origination figure. 71. Respondent should have compensation in the amount of $2,592.77, which equals 8% of the attorney fees paid by Mr. Barg to B&L. 72. Respondent converted to his own use the sum of $3,988.18, which is the difference between the origination compensation legal matter he and was the paid in connection origination with Mr. Barg's he should compensation have received. 73. By failing to disclose to Mr. Stewart that Respondent had promised Mr. 23 Bochetto and Ms. Rayz a referral fee in connection with Mr. Barg's legal matter, deprived Mr. Rayz of payment of a $6,481.93 Respondent referral fee from B&L. 74. Respondent failed to promptly notify Mr. Rayz when Respondent was paid attorney fees from Mr. Barg during the course of B&L's representation of Mr. Barg. 75. Respondent failed to take action to ensure that prompt distribution was made to Mr. Rayz of that portion of the attorney fees B&L received from Mr. Barg during the course of B&L's representation of Mr. Barg. 76. 8 and By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 60 through above, 75, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 1.15 (a) (effective effective 9/20/08), lawyer shall third persons possession lawyer hold in 4/23/05, which property that is connection relationship superseded states of in clients with a or lawyer's a separate lawyer's own property. that a client- from the Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt, maintenance and disposition of 24 such property shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of relationship or disposition of the client-lawyer after the distribution property, or whichever is later; b. RPC 1.15 (b) (effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that upon receiving property of or third person in connection a client with a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the third person, deliver to lawyer a the client client or shall promptly or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or render a third full person, accounting shall promptly regarding such property; and c. RPC 8.4(c), professional which states misconduct 25 for that a it is lawyer to engage in involving conduct dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. 5, 77. During Respondent THE DATZ REFERRAL Respondent's knew that for employment client matters B&L, with or prospective client matters that an associate attorney originated that were referred to another attorney or approval of Mr. Bochetto, receive 33% of the the referral law associate fee firm with the attorney received by would B&L for contingent fee cases. 78. call On with June Ms. 26, Jillene 2007, Respondent Pasternak and had her a conference daughter, Amy Hendry. 79. During the conference call: a. Ms. Pasternak described to Respondent a slip and fall accident she had on June 20, which occurred Sheraton on Hotel the located 2007, sidewalk outside a on Street in Dock Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. b. Ms. Pasternak expressed to Respondent her need to retain counsel to represent her for any claims she had arising from the slip and fall accident. 26 c. Respondent Harold referred Datz, Pasternak Ms. and Esquire, to provided A. Ms. Pasternak with Mr. Datz's telephone number. 80. Respondent failed to obtain the approval of Mr. Bochetto to refer Ms. Pasternak's slip and fall accident case to Mr. Datz. 81. By e-mail dated 27, June 2007, sent to Respondent, Ms. Hendry, inter alia: a. expressed her thanks knowledge" for Respondent the "patience and exhibited during the Pasternak, was June 26, 2007 conference call; b. stated that her mother, Ms. relieved to have spoken with Respondent; c. advised that Ms. to Pasternak had yet to speak "[Respondent's] recommendation Harold Datz"; and d. asked if Respondent could alert Mr. Datz that Ms. Pasternak was trying to reach him. 82. and with By e-mail dated June 27, the subject heading of 2007, sent to Mr. Datz, "New Case, " Respondent forwarded to Mr. Datz Ms. Hendry's June 27, 2007 e-mail. 83. and with By e-mail dated June 27, the subject heading 27 2007, sent to Mr. Datz, of "Jill Pasternak," Respondent, inter alia: a. provided Datz Mr. with Ms. Pasternak's telephone number; b. advised Mr. Datz that Ms. Pasternak left Mr. Datz a message and was waiting for a return telephone call; and c. requested Mr. that Datz contact Ms. Pasternak. 84. By e-mail dated June 27, sent 2007, to Respondent, Mr. Datz, inter alia: a. advised Respondent with Ms. case'1 that he had just Pasternak and that he was spoken "on the ; b. thanked Respondent for the referral; c. informed Respondent that he would "keep [him] posted"; and d. stated that "[i] t [Respondent] goes without will receive a saying that referral fee upon the successful conclusion of the case." 85. By e-mail June dated 28, 2007' sent to spoken to Respondent, Ms. Hendry, inter alia: a. advised Ms. Respondent that she had Pasternak: the previous evening and had 28 learned that Ms. Pasternak had spoken with Mr. Datz, who was planning to meet with Ms. Pasternak at her home that day; and b. thanked Respondent for speaking with Ms. Pasternak the previous day and answering Ms. Pasternak's questions. 86. and By e-mail dated June 28, 2007, sent to Mr. Datz, with the subject Info," Mr. Datz provided heading with of "Re: Respondent's home Respondent address and personal cell phone number. 87. Ms. Pasternak retained Mr. Datz to represent her for any claims she had arising from the June 20, 2007 slip and fall accident. 88. As of March 2009, Respondent's or about April 2009, slip and employment with B&L ceased. 89. In Pasternak's fall accident Mr. Datz case settled Ms. for the sum of $216,000.00. 90. By e-mail dated April 10, 2009, sent to Mr. Datz, Respondent, inter alia: a. attached an unidentified pdf file for Mr. Datz; b. provided Mr. Datz 29 with tax identification number "26 4402924"; and c. 91. thanked Mr. Datz. Sometime in late April 2009, Mr. Datz received the $216,000.00 settlement check. a. Mr. Datz, pursuant to a fee agreement signed by Ms. Pasternak, received a 40% contingent fee, resulting in a fee of $86,400.00. 92. on Mr. paid By check number 4040, dated April 30, 2009, drawn Datz' s to IOLTA account with wachovia Bank, Respondent a referral fee in the Mr. Datz amount of $28,800.00, which amount represented one-third of the legal fee that Mr. Datz received for representing Ms. Pasternak. a. The "Memo" portion of this check stated the following: "PASTERNAK, JILLENE v STARWOOD HOTELS ET AL RE." 93. Respondent failed to: a. advise Mr. Bochetto that he had received a $28,800.00 referral was generated from fee a from Mr. personal Datz that injury case Respondent referred during the period he was employed at B&L; and b. pay to B&L represented the the 30 sum of portion $19,200.00, of the which $28,800.00 referral fee that B&L was entitled to receive. 94. Respondent failed to hold in a trust account for the benefit of B&L $19,200.00 from the $28,800.00 referral fee. 95. Respondent used all of the proceeds from the $28,800.00 referral fee that he received from Mr. Datz. 96. Respondent $19,200.00, converted to his which is the amount own use the sum of that B&L was entitled to receive from the $28,800.00 referral fee. 97. 8 and By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 77 through 96, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 1.15(b), which states that a lawyer shall hold all Rule 1.15 Funds and property separate Such from the property lawyer's shall be own property. identified and appropriately safeguarded; b. RPC 1. 15 (d) , which states that upon receiving Rule 1.15 Funds or property which are not Fiduciary Funds or property, lawyer shall promptly notify the third person, 31 consistent a client or with the requirements of applicable Notification of receipt of law. Fiduciary Funds or property to clients or other persons with a beneficial Funds or governed interest property by the governing in shall law, the such Fiduciary continue procedure to and be rules of requirements confidentiality and notice applicable to the Fiduciary entrustment; c. RPC 1.15(e), which states that except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the third person, deliver to property, the lawyer a client client or shall promptly or third person any including but not limited to Rule 1. 15 Funds, that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render regarding a full accounting property; Provided, however, delivery, accounting and Fiduciary Funds or property to by be governed 32 the law, that disclosure shall the the of continue procedure and the governing rules Fiduciary notice administration, and of requirements accounting confidentiality, applicable to the it is Fiduciary entrustment; and d. RPC 8.4(c), which professional in engage states misconduct conduct that for a lawyer involving to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. 6. 98. THE BOERNER MATTER On or about October 5, residence located at 200 Township, Burlington County, 2005, Mr. North Pine James Boerner's Avenue, New Jersey Maple Shade ("the property") , was destroyed by a fire. a. Prior to incident, this Boerner's Mr. mortgage company, National Company ("National City City"), had Mortgage instituted foreclosure proceedings against the property in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County. b. Richard P. Haber, Zucker, Esquire, Esquire, and represented Leonard National B. City in the foreclosure proceedings. 99. On December 16, 2005, Mr. Boerner retained B&L to 33 represent him conducted by Farm") or in connection State any Farm law with Fire an arson Casualty & enforcement investigation Company ("State ("the Boerner authority matter"). a. Mr. approved Bochetto representation of criminal Mr. indictment Respondent's of Boerner prior to any in connection with a criminal investigation. b. Mr. Bochetto approved non-refundable prior for to arson a fee retainer any potential in of for $5,000.00 representation criminal connection indictment with a criminal investigation. c. Respondent received $750.00 from B&L because he originated the Boerner matter. d. Respondent was assigned to handle the Boerner matter. 100. Respondent provided Mr. Boerner with prepared on B&L letterhead dated December 16, a letter 2005, which set forth the terms of the representation by B&L. 101. On or about December 19, 2005, B&L received payment of the $5,000.00 retainer from Mr. Boerner. 102. Commencing sometime 34 in September 2005' Mr. Boerner had discussions with Herbert Donald McCulloch, a potential co-buyer, concerning the sale of the property to Mr. McCulloch and to Mr. Hollis Hames. a. Mr. McCulloch was firm of Prochniak, purpose of represented Weisberg, providing by P.C., him with the law for the counsel and advice in acquiring the property and for the purpose of consummate drafting Mr. the documents acquisition McCulloch's to of the property. b. Following Mr. Boerner's retention of B&L, Respondent provided legal counsel and advice to Mr. Boerner regarding the documents that were drafted to consummate the sale of the property. c. In connection with Respondent's representation of Mr. Boerner concerning the sale of the property, Respondent had contact with Matthew B. Weisberg, Esquire, counsel for Mr. McCulloch. 103. From January 3, twenty-two e-mails were 2006 sent through February to Respondent B, 2006, either by Mr. Weisberg or Mr. Haber, and dealt with efforts to delay the 35 sheriff's sale of the property and to effectuate the sale of the property from Mr. Boerner to Mr. McCulloch and Mr. Hames. 104. Respondent received the aforementioned e-mails. 105. By Weisberg Weisberg's that he e-mail dated Mr. Haber, and January 26, 2006, Respondent responded initial e-mail of January 26, would check with Mr. sent 2006, Boerner to Mr. to Mr. by stating and his father regarding the proposal set forth in Mr. Weisberg's e-mail. 106. By Respondent e-mail by Evan law partner, dated D. February Prochniak, and copied to Mr. 17, 2006, sent to Esquire, Mr. Weisberg's McCulloch, Mr. Hames, and Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Prochniak, inter alia: a. attached for documents that Respondent's Mr. the review Boerner had to sign to transfer title to the property; b. requested that Respondent let him know immediately if Respondent wanted any changes to the documents; and c. stated that he could have a "closer" deliver the attached documents to Mr. Boerner that day for his signature. 107. By e-mail dated February 17, 36 2006, sent to Mr. Prochniak, Respondent replied that the "docs are fine for him [Mr. Boerner) to sign." 108. On February 17, 2006, Mr. Boerner, Mr. McCulloch, and Mr. Hames executed a document entitled "Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Estate" ("the Agreement"). 109. Mr. McCulloch and Mr. Hames paid to National City the amount that was due and owing to National City under the mortgage it held on the property. 110. For the months of January and February 2006, the time records Respondent kept for the Boerner matter during his employment at B&L reflect that Respondent received and reviewed e-mails Prochniak; had Weisberg, sale of Mr. Respondent Respondent Mr. from the sent telephone Mr. Weisberg, Haber, Mr. e-mails to conversations and Mr. property; and Haber, Mr. with and Weisberg; Mr. Boerner, Prochniak regarding Respondent Mr. reviewed the the Agreement. 111. By Respondent e-mail by description of Mr. dated February Weisberg, "Boerner: Fire and 21, which Ins.," Mr. 2006, had sent a to subject Weisberg, inter alia: a. asked Respondent to forward the homeowner's insurance policy and policy information for 37 the property; andc b. inquired when examination Boerner's Mr. under oath and trial would take place. 112. By e-mail dated 26, February 2006, which Respondent sent to Mr. Weisberg and copied to Lynne Nucci, Respondent's B&L, and "Boerner: paralegal which during e-mail had Respondent's a at description subject employment of Fire Ins.," Respondent, inter alia: requested a. that Ms. Nucci provide Mr. Weisberg with the information regarding Mr. Boerner's homeowner's policy as requested in Mr. Weisberg's February 21, 2006 e-mail; b. stated that Mr. Boerner's examination under oath would take place on March 7, 2006; and c. advised that no criminal case had been filed against Mr. Boerner. 113. By e-mail dated February 28, 2006, Weisberg to Respondent and copied to Ms. had a subject description of sent by Mr. Nucci, "Boerner: Fire and which Ins. , " Mr. Weisberg requested a response from Ms. Nucci. 114. By e-mail Respondent sent to Mr. and had which a 2006, which Weisberg and copied to Ms. Nucci, dated subject February description 38 28, of "Boerner: Fire Ins.," Mr. Respondent again requested that Ms. Nucci Weisberg with the information regarding Mr. provide Boerner's homeowner's policy. 115. On Boerner Hochman, March while he 27, 2006, was Esquire, Respondent examined an attorney under represented oath by representing Mark State Mr. S. Farm, concerning claim number 30-P140-317. a. Mr. Hochman wanted to question Mr. Boerner regarding a claim that Mr. Boerner submitted to State Farm arising from the fire that destroyed the property. b. During the examination, Mr. Boerner asserted his Fifth Amendment incrimination to right the against majority self- of the questions posed to him by Mr. Hochman. c. Towards the Respondent record Boerner close stated conversation agreed to submit ted to State He's not of that with the examination, after Mr. "forego an off-the- Boerner, any claims Farm Insurance interested in Mr. he Company. pursuing any insurance claim with State Farm." d. Mr. Hochman told Respondent 39 that he would discuss State the matter with representatives of Farm and advise Respondent if State Farm would close its investigation based on Mr. Boerner's willingness to withdraw his sent Mr. claim. 116. By letter dated March Boerner and copied to Respondent, Boerner that no coverage 31, 2006, to State Farm informed Mr. existed for the fire that destroyed the property because Mr. Boerner failed to answer questions during the March 27, 2006 examination. a. Respondent received this letter. 117. On June 30, 2006, State Farm issued a check ("the State Farm payable assigns: to check") in "National the amount of City Mortgage $130,727.45, Co. its succ. made and/or ATIMA." a. The State Farm check had typed on it a "loss date" of "10/05/2006." b. The State Farm check had typed on it "CLAIM NO 30-P140-317." 118. National City, having mortgage on the property from Mr. received payment McCulloch, of its endorsed the State Farm check and forwarded it to Mr. Boerner. 119. On July 17, 2006, Respondent 40 had a conference call with Mr. Boerner regarding the State Farm check. 120. On July 24, 2006, conference call with Mr. Res'pondent had a second Boerner regarding the State Farm check. 121. On July 25, 2006, conference call with Mr. Respondent had a third Boerner regarding the State Farm check. a. After Respondent's Boerner, conference call with Mr. Respondent placed a telephone call to State Farm. 122. On July 26, 2006, conference call with Mr. Respondent had a fourth Boerner regarding the State Farm check. 123. On July 27, 2006, conference call with Mr. Respondent had a fifth Boerner regarding the State Farm check. 124. On July 28, 2006, Respondent had a sixth conference call with Mr. Boerner regarding, inter alia, the State Farm check. 125. Respondent from National City knew a that check Mr. issued Boerner on had account received of the obligation of State Farm to make payment to a mortgagee on an insurance contract when the 41 collateral securing the (i.e., obligation the improvements to the property) was destroyed. 126. Sometime in August between Respondent and 2006, Mr. arrangements were made Boerner for Mr. Boerner to deposit the State Farm check into B&L's escrow account. 12 7. On 11, August 2006, Mr. Boerner met with Respondent at the office of B&L and presented to Respondent the State Farm check for deposit into B&L's escrow account. 128. On August 11, 2006, the State Farm check was 11, 2006, sent by deposited into B&L's escrow account. 12 9. By letter dated August Respondent to Mr. Boerner, Respondent, inter alia: a. confirmed that Mr. B&L his "mortgage hold Boerner requested proceeds in that the amount of $130,727.45 in escrow pending the outcome of the arson investigation"; and b. informed Mr. Boerner that the "mortgage proceeds" would be held in escrow until Mr. Boerner requested the release of the funds. 130. In December 2006, after request of Mr. Boerner, the B&L bookkeeper distributed the proceeds from the State Farm check as set forth below: a. pursuant to Respondent' s 42 letter to Mr. Boerner dated December 4, 2006, $30,000.00 was paid to B&L as a fee for representation of Mr. Boerner in a Driving Under the Influence case; b. $13,498.83 Treasury was to tax debt, paid to satisfy the Mr. United Boerner's States federal which was memorialized in letters Respondent sent to Mr. dated Boerner December 4, 2006 and December 11, 2006; c. pursuant to the $30,000.00 was representation of December paid Mr. 11, 2006 B&L to Boerner letter, in a for second Driving Under the Influence case; and d. the remainder of the funds was disbursed to Mr. Boerner, memorialized which in the disbursement December 11, was 2006 letter. 131. Based on the two $30,000.00 payments received by B&L as legal fees from Mr. Boerner, B&L received $48,000.00 in fees, and Respondent received two separate payments from B&L, each in the amount of $6, 000.00, because Respondent originated the additional representation of Mr. his criminal matters. 43 Boerner in 132. By e-mail dated May 2, by Mr. Weisberg, 2007, and which had a sent to Respondent subject description of "Boerner: Fire Ins.," Mr. Weisberg, inter alia: a. stated that he was advised that Respondent had received the insurance proceeds arising from the fire Respondent to the had taken a property fee and that and distributed the remaining proceeds to Mr. Boerner; b. pointed out insurance the Agreement client Weisberg's that the beneficiary payout arising from made the Mr. of any fire to the property; and c. "suggested" that Respondent insurance proceeds from Mr. retrieve the Boerner "before this blows up .... " 133. Respondent received this e-mail. 134. By letter dated May 3, by Alan H. Ettenson, Esquire, 2007, counsel sent to Respondent for Mr. McCulloch, Mr. Ettenson, inter alia: a. advised Respondent that he represented Mr. McCulloch "with regard to insurance proceeds that are due him arising out of the sale" of the property; 44 b. stated that Respondent had told Mr. Ettenson that B&L had received funds from National City "in the approximate amount of $136,000 (in or about 2006) and disbursed [Respondent l July, that those funds in December, 2006"; c. advised that Mr. McCulloch, not Mr. Boerner, was entitled to the funds that Mr. Boerner had received; and d. that stated although contended that sale of the documents he was not property, that Respondent had involved in the Mr. showed Ettenson had Respondent~s involvement in the transaction. 135. Respondent received this letter and reviewed it with Mr. Bochetto. 136. On or about May 8, 2007, Respondent had a meeting with Mr. Bochetto and others regarding Mr. Ettenson's May 3, 2007 letter. a. Respondent claimed that he had not reviewed the Agreement whether Mr. and Boerner 45 that was he did entitled not to know the proceeds from the State Farm check that had been held in the B&L escrow account. b. In Respondent's presence, Bochetto Mr. called Mr. Ettenson regarding his letter. 137. Based on the discussion between Respondent and Mr. Bochetto during the meeting and the conference call, decision was reached that Mr. Bochetto would send a Mr. Ettenson a letter. a. Respondent prepared a draft of this letter. 138. By letter dated May 9, 2007, which was sent to Mr. Ettenson, Mr. Bochetto, inter alia: a. stated that the letter was their prior telephone responsive a follow-up to conversation and was to certain issues raised in Mr. Ettenson's May 3, 2007 letter; b. discussed how, and under what circumstances, the proceeds from the State Farm check had been distributed; c. represented that Respondent was unaware of a dispute regarding proceeds from Respondent the received and 46 to the check until entitlement State Mr. Farm Ettenson's letter; d. stated that after speaking with Respondent, inter alia, Respondent had he learned that, not reviewed the Agreement and that the only advice that Respondent the gave pending to Mr. criminal would not prevent Mr. Boerner was investigations Boerner from selling the property. 139. Respondent was copied on this letter. 140. Unbeknownst letter contained to Mr. several Bochetto, his May 2007 in misrepresentations, 9, that Respondent: a. had received and reviewed the Agreement; and b. had some involvement in the sale of the property. 141. In April 2008, Mr. McCulloch filed a the Superior Court of New Jersey, County, captioned Matthew B. Albert Weisberg, Law Division, Donald Evan uTripp 0 Burlington McCulloch Prochniak, D. lawsuit in vs. Prochniak, Weisberg, P.C. £/k/a Prochniak, Poet & Weisberg, P.C., John Does and jointly, Jane Does, 1-10, and Richard severally and in the alternative Roe, Inc. 1-10, ("the McCulloch lawsuit"), docketed at BUR-L-1188-08. 142. In January 2009, Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Prochniak, and 47 their firm filed in connection with the McCulloch lawsuit a Third Party Complaint against Mr. Sigman, B&L, and Mr. Boerner. 143. In January 2009, Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Prochniak, and their firm filed in connection with the McCulloch lawsuit a Third Party Complaint against Respondent, B&L, and Mr. Boerner. a. The Third Party Complaint alleged that Respondent and B&L knew or should have known that the proceeds from the State Farm check belonged to Mr. McCulloch and not Mr. Boerner. 144. On prepared an or February about Affidavit for his 23, 2009, signature Respondent ("the Sigman Af f ida vi t") . 145. In Respondent the was Sigman Affidavit, "duly sworn according which to stated law," Respondent claimed, inter alia, that: As far as I knew, State Farm declined to pay Mr. Boerner's fire insurance claim based on his failure to cooperate and answer questions at the deposition. This understanding was confirmed in a letter from State Farm dated March 31, 2006. The letter stated that Mr. Boerner would not be covered 48 that for the fire related loss occurred on October 5, 2005. that On August 11, 2006, Mr. Boerner did give me a check from his mortgage company to hold in escrow, so that he would have to pay his adequate resources defense fees and to pay off money he owed to the IRS. 146. Respondent signed the Sigman Affidavit, which was notarized by Ms. Parisano and witnessed by a third party. 147. On March 3, 2009, Respondent was deposed by Mr. Ettenson and by Barry Brownstein, Esquire, counsel for Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Prochniak, and their law firm. 148. During Ettenson and Mr. the deposition, Respondent Brownstein with, provided inter alia, the Mr. Sigman Affidavits. 149. During the deposition, Respondent falsely testified that: a. he did not review the Agreement before the property was sold; b. he was not involved in the sale of the property; c. he did not keep time records for the legal services he rendered to Mr. Boerner; d. he was unaware check; 49 that State Farm issued a e. he was unaware check for that fire the State Farm that issued destroyed a the property; f. he did not know that Mr. Boerner received a check from State Farm; g. he did not question Mr. "mortgage company" Boerner about (in actuality, the the State Farm) check; h. he did not contact State Farm regarding the State Farm check; i. he did not know presenting to check deposit for that Mr. Respondent into Boerner was the State Farm the B&L escrow account; and j. he did not take a fee from fire insurance proceeds. 150. Respondent kept track of the time he spent on Mr. Boerner's matters while he was employed at B&L. 151. The Respondent's Sigman false Affidavit, testimony at in the conjunction deposition, with was misleading, in that Respondent created the false impression that he was unaware that the 50 "mortgage company" check he received from Mr. Boerner for deposit into B&L' s escrow account was issued by State Farm. 152. Respondent, Michelman, Esquire, Et tenson and Mr. through sent a his May attorney, 7, 2009 Brownstein in which Mr. David letter to F. Mr. Et tens on and Mr. Brownstein were advised that Respondent wanted to "correct" "certain mistakes" Respondent made during and requested that Respondent be re-deposed, the fact that $130,000.00 time records were kept, check, the nature his deposition specifically, the nature of the of the Boerner representation, and the fees paid to B&L. a. This letter was sent after Mr. Michelman and Respondent records, reviewed Respondent's and payment records, billing maintained by B&L for the Boerner matter. 153. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 8 and through 98 152, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 3.4(a), which states that a lawyer shall not unlawfully access destroy to or obstruct evidence conceal 51 or a another party's unlawfully alter, document or other material having potential evidentiary value or assist another person to do any such act; b. RPC 8.4(c), which professional engage in states misconduct conduct for that a involving it is lawyer to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and c. RPC 8.4 (d), professional which states misconduct for that a it is lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 7. THE WESTLAW ACCOUNT 154. During the course of Respondent's employment at B&L, Respondent received a Westlaw password for the Westlaw account maintained by B&L. 155. B&L' s Westlaw account was to be used exclusively in connection with the representation of B&L clients or on behalf of B&L. 156. At no time did Mr. Bochetto authorize Respondent to disseminate to anyone not employed by B&L the Westlaw password Respondent received for B&L's Westlaw account. 157. By e-mail dated June 13, 2007, which was sent to Respondent whom by Ms. Respondent Tara D'Lutz, was Esquire, acquainted, 52 Ms. an attorney with D'Lutz stated the following: That wonderful Lexis ID you gave me is defunct-do you have an IDbroad-spectrum, that I could use to run one background check on this slimebag "Irving Friend" -a minister of all things involved in this sexual harassment/defamation case I have? 158. Respondent received this e-mail. 159. In response to this e-mail, Respondent sent an email to Ms. Tara D'Lutz that had the Westlaw password for B&L's Westlaw account. a. Ms. Tara D'Lutz was not employed by B&L. b. Ms. Tara D'Lutz was employed as an attorney with the law firm of William G. Associates, which is Shields & in the Tara D' Lutz that located Commonwealth of Virginia. 160. Respondent did not advise Ms. the Westlaw password she received from him was for B&L' s Westlaw account. 161. During the months of July and August Tara D' Lutz account used the Westlaw password for 2007, B&L' s Ms. Westlaw for searches related to Alaska and Virginia case law. 162. B&L received invoices for the months of July and August 2007 from Westlaw for B&L' s 53 West law account which reflected charges related to searches of Alaska and Virginia case law. 163. By two e-mails dated August 14, 2007, Ms. Barbara Stewart questioned the employees of B&L about charges made to B&L's Westlaw account. 164. By an e-mail dated August 21, Ms. Barbara about charges relating to Virginia or Alaska law made to B&L' s Westlaw Stewart questioned the employees of 2007, B&L account. 165. Respondent denied having any information about the unauthorized charges relating to Alaska or Virginia law made to B&L's Westlaw account. 166. Respondent did not have any information about unauthorized charges relating to Alaska law made to B&L' s Westlaw account. 167. B&L paid Westlaw $3,662.80 for the usage. 168. B&L learned that Ms. Tara D'Lutz had received the West law password for B&L' s West law account from Respondent and that she had used that password to conduct research relating to Alaska and Virginia case law. 169. By check dated November 16, 2009, William G. Shields, Esquire, paid to B&L the sum of $3,662.80. 170. By his conduct as 54 alleged in Paragraphs 154 through 169 above, Respondent violated the following Rule of Professional Conduct: RPC a. which 8.4(c), professional engage in misconduct conduct that states for is lawyer a. it to dishonesty, involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. SPECIFIC JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE 171. Petitioner and Respondent appropriate the discipline for jointly recommend that Respondent's admitted misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law for a period of thirty months. 172. being Respondent imposed Pennsylvania. executed stating upon consents he to by him Attached to Affidavit that hereby Supreme this required consents by to the the that Petition Rule is discipline Court of Respondent's 215(d), Pa.R.D.E., recommended discipline, including the mandatory acknowledgements contained in Rule 215(d) (1) through (4), Pa.R.D.E. 173. In support of Petitioner and Respondent's joint recommendation, it is respectfully submitted that there are several mitigating circumstances: a. Respondent misconduct has admitted and violating 55 the engaging in charged Rules of Professional Conduct; b. Respondent as is has cooperated evidenced by herein and his with Petitioner, Respondent's consent to admissions receiving a suspension of thirty months; c. Respondent is remorseful for his misconduct and understands he should be disciplined, as is evidenced by his consent to receiving a suspension of thirty months; d. Respondent has no record of discipline in the Commonwealth; and e. Respondent has been actively involved the Philadelphia Bar Association, with the North Philadelphia Weed and Seed Program (aims are to eliminate drug-related crime and improve the social and community), and organizations, economic other as conditions legal more fully of the and non-legal set forth in the attached document designated as "Exhibit A. 174. II Respondent Philadelphia Court has of filed Common Pleas a lawsuit against B&L in the alleging that he is owed referral fees for cases that he originated 56 that remained at B&L after Respondent's employment at B&L terminated. B&L Respondent's share originated. has of referral share of in receive an escrow fees for account cases he the referral fees because, Respondent converted client fees and referral fees that belonged to B&L. B&L into B&L claims that it is entitled to a set-off against Respondent's inter alia, deposited writing the sum escrow account. that of it Respondent has agreed to notify is authorized $25,468.18 from to the withdraw and aforementioned This amount equals the amount of monies that ODC has determined that Respondent converted from B&L in the matters that are referenced in the Joint Petition. 175. Respondent, bring to through his the attention of the attorneys, desires three-member panel Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Court of to of the Pennsylvania that if the within disciplinary matter had proceeded to a disciplinary letters in Respondent would have discussing Respondent's character and legal members hearing, and of non-legal the legal organizations and Philadelphia region: Attorney Philadelphia; University of Beasley non-legal Lynne School from M. of 57 Law; Epps, involvement the following community Abraham, JoAnne presented former Dean Natalie of in the District Temple Klyashtorny, Esquire; Richard Agins, Esquire; Evan S. Shingles, Esquire; Mitchell H. Klevan, Nancy S. Esquire; Senior Deputy Attorney General Hartsough; Gregory Cirillo, Esquire; Philadelphia Police Captain Joseph Bologna; Philadelphia Police Officer Tina Willis; and Jason Reiver. These letters are attached collectively as "Exhibit B." 176. Precedent suggests that Respondent's misconduct warrants a suspension of thirty months. Respondent's distinguishable Counsel v. matter from, Steven is two somewhat Office cases, Robert similar Grayson, of No. to, albeit Disciplinary 95 DB 2007 (Recommendation of Three-Member Panel 11/14/07) (S.Ct. Order 3/20/08) (two-year suspension for converting over $35,000.00 in fees and costs belonging to Respondent's former employer over a thirty-three month period; in mitigation, Respondent Grayson had remorseful, no and record made of discipline, restitution) cooperated, was Office of and Disciplinary Counsel v. Joan Gaughan Atlas, No. 171 DB 2001 (D. Bd. Rpt. suspension 3/24/04) (S.Ct. for: converting Order 6/29/04) (three-year approximately $35,000.00 in fees belonging to Respondent's former employer; commingling personal funds with fiduciary funds; of 44 months, to hold in trust 58 failing, over a period client funds in several matters; making misrepresentations to her former employer; and filing false certifications with the Secretary's Office regarding her compliance with RPC 1.15; in mitigation, Respondent Atlas had no record of discipline and achieved and maintained sobriety in her recovery from alcoholism) . comparison A of these cases to Respondent's matter indicates that a thirty-month suspension is an appropriate sanction for Respondent's misconduct. Respondent Like converted a (over substantial $25, 000. 00); period of time discipline; Grayson, amount engaged Respondent of in fees Sigman from his misconduct over employer a no lengthy (twenty-four made has has: months); record of restitution; and cooperated by admitting his misconduct. However, that suggests Grayson, that would misconduct misconduct. mere there is is a be an important two-year too more conversion of fees suspension, lenient. egregious Respondent distinguishing belonging imposed Respondent than Sigman's as Respondent misconduct to B&L. factor in Sigman's Grayson's went beyond Respondent's misconduct also involved offering false testimony during a deposition (although two months after Respondent advised Mr. Ettenson and Mr. 59 the deposition Brownstein that he made "certain mistakes" during the deposition), failing to disclose that Mr. Rayz had referred the Barg matter to B&L (thereby depriving Mr. thousand dollars Rayz of a referral from B&L) , and fee of several providing the Westlaw password for B&L's Westlaw account to Ms. Tara D'Lutz, who used the account to accrue almost $3,700.00 of unauthorized charges (Ms. Tara D'Lutz's employer reimbursed B&L for her unauthorized charges) . Atlas and Respondent Sigman's matter resemble one another in that both matters involve not only conversion of substantial fees from their former employers, but other species of misconduct. Yet, there are several significant dissimilarities between the matter at bar and the Atlas case that would warrant a modest downward departure from Atlas's three-year suspension. quite as Respondent months, egregious Atlas's Respondent Sigman's misconduct is not as Respondent misconduct Atlas's occurred over misconduct. forty-four while Respondent Sigman's misconduct occurred over twenty-four Respondent made First, months. Although both Sigman converted fees misrepresentations, Respondent Atlas and from their employers and Respondent Atlas also commingled her funds with fiduciary funds and failed to hold inviolate 60 Second, client funds. Respondent Atlas did not offer in mitigation of discipline restitution, cooperation, remorse, and extensive contributions to a local bar association, as does Respondent Sigman. In sum, support the disciplinary cases of Grayson and Atlas Petitioner and Respondent's joint recommendation for a thirty-month suspension. 177. After considering mitigating factors, thirty-month precedent and weighing the Petitioner and Respondent submit that a suspension is appropriate discipline for Respondent's misconduct. WHEREFORE, Petitioner and respectfully Respondent request that: a. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E., the Disciplinary above Rule Discipline review Petition On recommendation and three-member Board Joint 215(e) Consent with the panel and In 215 (g)' of the approve the Support Of file its and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in which it is recommended that the Supreme Court enter an Order: 61 ( i) suspending Respondent from the practice of law for a period of thirty months; and (ii) directing Respondent to comply with all of the provisions Rule of 217' Pa.R.D.E. b. Pursuant panel to Rule of the Respondent to 215(i), the Disciplinary pay the three-member Board necessary order expenses incurred in the investigation of this matter as a condition to the grant of the Petition and that all expenses be paid by Respondent before the imposition of discipline under Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL By Richard Hernandez Disciplinary Counsel 62 By sc-;t:t"iihi lip Sigman, Esquire Respondent By senberg, E:squ· e espond~mt. By ~on,- Esquire ¢ . Counsel. for Respondent .· · 63 EXHIBIT A Scott P. Sigman, Esquire PUBLICATIONS Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, Temple University, Fall 2000. (www.temple.edu/ticlj) Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, Temple University, Spring 200 I. (www.temple.edu/ticlj) Community Aided Prosecution In the Weed & Seed Site: A Success Story, Weed & Seed Insights, United States Department of Justice Executive Office of Weed & Seed, 2004. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo/ws/welcome.html) A Prosecutor's Tool to Better Quality of Life and Combat Drug Nuisances in the Weed & Seed Site, Weed & Seed Insights, United States Department of Justice Executive Office of Weed & Seed, 2004. (http://www.ojp.usdoLgov/ccdo/ws/welcome.html) Philadelphia's Ultimate Weapon in Fighting the War on Drugs, At Issue, Pennsylvania Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, Summer 2004. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/ai04-ultimate.pdf) Weapons of Mass Destruction, At Issue, Pennsylvania Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, Winter 2005. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/ai05-wmd.pdf) Asset Forfeiture Takes a Front Seat in Philly, Weed & Seed Insights, United States Department of Justice Executive Office of Weed & Seed, 2005. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/insights.pdf) The War on Drugs Faces a Budget Crunch, At Issue, Pennsylvania Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, Fall2005. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/ai05-ward.pd0 Social Promotion, ABA Journal, American Bar Association, 2008. (http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/social promotion/) Accreditation ofLaw School Proposal: A Hot Topic at the ABA Midyear Meeting, At Issue, Pennsylvania Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, Summer 2008. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/ai08-accred.pdf) Casting A Wider 'Net' Why Young Lawyers Are Embracing Social Networking Sites Like Never Before, At Issue, Pennsylvania Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, Spring 2009. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/ai09-social.pdf) Temple American Inn of Court Celebrates Twenty Years, Inn the News, The Bencher, Sept/Oct 2011. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/taic%20bencher.pdf) Philadelphia's Ambassadors to Italy, The Philadelphia Lawyer, Philadelphia Bar Association Magazine, Fall2011. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/taic%20rome.pdf) Trial of Amanda Knox Highlights the Dljjerences Between the United States and Italian Legal Systems, The Bencher, March/April2012. (http://www.scottsigman.com/pdfs/taic%20bencher2.pd0 CLECOURSES Using Trial Technology in a Jury Trial, Philadelphia Bar Association Bench-Bar Conference, November 6, 2004. Course Planner and Instructor Using Trial Technology In a Crimina/Jury Trial, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Course Planner and Instructor Criminal Law & Criminal Procedure, Philadelphia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division "The People's Law School," 2002-2007. Course Planner and Instructor Direct & Cross Examination with Technology, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute "Top Gun Drug Prosecution Course," November 15, 2004. Course Co-Planner and Instructor Drug Diversionary Programs in the U.S., National Black Prosecutors Association 2005 Annual Conference, August 18, 2005. Course Planner and Instructor Don't Forget Your Ethics, Personal Injury Potpourri presented by the Dispute Resolution Institute, April I 0, 2007 My First Federal Jury Trial, Philadelphia Bar Association, May 3, 2007. Course CoPlanner and Instructor The Ins and Outs ofElection Law, Philadelphia Bar Association. 2007. Course Co-Planner and Instructor Criminal Case Preparation, Philadelphia Bar Association, November 7, 2008. Course Planner aod Instructor Contract Negotiations, Americao College of Osteopathic Physicians- 461h Annual Convention, Washington, D.C., March 6, 2009. Course Planner and Instructor Prosecuting a Drug Case, Top Gun: Undercover Drug Law Enforcement Training, Ft. Indiantown Gap, PA, October 31, 2009. Course Planner aod Instructor Contract Negotiations II, American College of Osteopathic Physicians- 4 71h Annual Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 19,2010. Course Co-Planner and Instructor Contract Negotiations Ill, American College of Osteopathic Physicians- 48th Annual Convention, San Antonio, Texas, March 18, 20 II. Course Co-Planner aod Instructor Little Jury Room ofHorrors- PTSD, Temple American Inn of Court, April 13, 2011. CoWriter Lifestyles ofthe Rich and Sentenced, Philadelphia Criminal Inn of Court, April 19, 20 II. Co-Writer Case of Vixen Loveless v. Hands Grabsky, Temple American Inn of Court, February 8, 2012. Co-Writer Inferno: The Dalia Vargas Story, Philadelphia Criminal Inn of Court, October I, 2012. Co-Writer CERTIFICATIONS Top Gun: Undercover Drug Law Enforcement Training, Ft. Indiantown Gap, PA October 20, 2002 through October 26, 2002, Presented by Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Bureau ofNarcotics Investigation, Pennsylvania State Police, and Pennsylvania National Guard North East Counter Drug Training Center Basic Clandestine Laboratory Safety, Philadelphia, PA (July 26,2004 through July 29, 2004), Presented by Network Environmental Services Booby Traps in Drug Houses, Philadelphia, PA July 30, 2004 Presented by Philadelphia Police Bomb Disposal Unit AWARDS II st Judicial District Pro Bono Publico Award !Pennsylvania Rising Star Super Lawyer !Pennsylvania Rising Star Super Lawyer !Pennsylvania Rising Star Super Lawyer !Pennsylvania Rising Star Super Lawyer !Pennsylvania Rising Star Super Lawyer !Pennsylvania Rising Star Super Lawyer 12006 Lawyer on the Fast Track !Pennsylvania Rising Star Super Lawyer !Pennsylvania Senate Citation Pennsylvania House of Representatives Citation !City of Philadelphia City Council Citation III" Judicial District of Pennsylvania IIPhiladelphia Magazine Law & Politics IIPhiladelphia Magazine Law & Politics IIPhiladelphia Magazine Law & Politics IIPhiladelphia Magazine Law & Politics IIPhiladelphia Magazine Law & Politics IIPhiladelphia Magazine Law & Politics liThe Legal Intelligencer IIPhiladelphia Magazine Law & Politics IIPennsylvania Senate II 2012 II 2012 II 2011 2010 2008 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 Pennsylvania House of Representatives 8 IIPhiladelphia City Council Mariane Bracetti Charter School Police Outstanding Service in Public Safety Department IIPhiladelphia District Attorney's Office !outstanding Service Wapner, Newman & Wigrizer, P.C. Award in Temple University- James E. Beasley Trial Advocacy School of Law Barrister's Award in Trial Advocacy II Temple University - James E. Beasley I 11 2oo5 1 1 2004 1 11 2001 I 8 1 2ooo 1 School of Law II Outstanding Achievement !Philadelphia District Attorney's Office II Barrister's Award in Trial Advocacy I Temple University- James E. Beasley School of Law 8 1999 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS American Bar Association, Member (2002-20II) Bar Association of the Third Federal Circuit, Member (2007-20IO) Cl'iminal Justice Act (CJA) Attorney for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (20 II-present) District Attorneys' Alumni Association, Member (2005-present) National District Attorneys Association, Associate Member (200I-2005) Pennsylvania Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division (Zone Chair for Philadelphia 2002-2008) and House ofDelegates (Zone I Delegate 2007-2008) United States Department of Justice North Philadelphia Weed & Seed Program, Steering Committee ( I998-2005), Board of Directors (Vice President 2005- present) Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, Member (200I-2005) Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, Member (2005-present) Philadelphia Bar Association: Young Lawyers Division (Immediate Past Chair 2009, Chair 2008, Chair-Elect 2007, Vice Chair 2005-2006, Financial Secretary 2004, and Executive Board Member 200I-2009); Criminal Justice Section (Executive Board Member), Profossional Responsibility Committee; Federal Courts Committee; Municipal Courts Committee; Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention, Investigative Division (2006-2008); Delegate to the Pennsylvania Bar Association (2007-2009), Bench Bar Conference Committee (2007), Board of Governors (20072008, 20I 0-20I2), Bar Association Nominating Committee (2006-2008), and the Bar Academy Board ofDirectors (20I0-20I2) Philadelphia Criminal Inn of Court, Member (2011-present), (Executive Committee, Web Administrator 2012-present) Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, Member (2005-present) (President's Select & Future Leaders Committee 2007-present) Temple American Inn of Court, Member (2005-present), (Executive Committee 20 !}present, Public Relations/Communications and Co-Web Administrator 20II-present) Temple Law Alumni Association, Member (2001- present), Member of the Executive Board (Annual Meeting Committee Co-Chair 2007-20I2, Bar Admission Ceremony Committee Co-Chair 20I0-20I2, Community Outreach Committee Co-Chair 200220Il, Recent Graduate Division Co-Chair 2002-2007, and Law Day Committee 20022011) The Justinian Society, Member (2001-present) The Lawyers Club of Philadelphia, Member (200 ]-present), Board of Directors (Treasurer 2006-present, Nominating Committee 2008-2011, By-Laws Committee 2010-20Il, Membership Committee 2006-2011, Sub-Committee on Membership and Finance 2010-20IJ, Brochure Committee 2009-20Il) The Louis Brandeis Law Society, Member of the Executive Board (2004-present) Pennsylvania Narcotic Officers Association, Associate Member (2001-2005) Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, Member (2008-present) Pyramid Club, Member (2005-present) 1 The Pennsylvania Society, Member (2006-present) The Union League of Philadelphia, Member (Armed Services Committee 2008-present, Stein Club 2010- present, Scotch Club 2010-present) The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, Member (2005-2009) Variety Club, Member (2005-2008) Vesper Club, Member (2005-2009) EXHIBIT B Archer&Greiner P.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Lynno M. Abrtthnm lnbmhnm@orchorlnw.com 215·246-3113 Direct One Liberty !'!nee· 32nd Floor 1650 Mm·ket Sll·eet Philadelphia, PA 191 03·7393 (215) 963-3300 Main (215) 963-9999 Fax www.nrche ¢·lnw.com November 12, 2012 VIA EMAIL Barbara S. Rosenberg, Esquire Law Office of Barbara S. Rosenbet·g 1060 First Avenue ~ Suite 400 King of Prussia, P A 19406 Re: Petition For Discipline Filed against Scott Philip Sigman, Esquire Dear: Disciplinary Board Members and Barbara Rosenberg, Disciplinary Counsel: I am writing this letter to attest to the good character of Scott Sigman during the time he worked for me in the District Attorney's Office of Philadelphia. As you already know, I am the former District Attorney of Philadelphia having served almost 19 years in that capacity commencing in May of 1991. Sometime during the year 1999, Scott Sigman came to work for me as a Legal Intern. Thereafter, he became a full time Assistant District Attorney. Scott and his fellow classmates worked their way through the introductory units of the office until he and they were sufficiently well trained to be assigned to a specialized unit of a particular division. Because of Scott's great interest in narcotics prosecution, it was a natural fit for us and him that he be assigned to that high volume Division. He was assigned· to the wide array of cases that find their way into that Division. Scott tried a number of high profile narcotics cases, both bench and jury trials, and then he was assigned to a more specialized unit, the Public Nuisance Task Force (PNTF). The PNTF seeks to identify high volume and dangerous criminals in a given community, then working with local police assigned to that neighborhood, identifY and prosecute the worst offenders. "The offenders are not iunocent peddlers of a baggie of marijuana but are, instead, gun wielding members of large groups of organized criminal gangs. The dollar volume of these large groups is staggering and the path of death and injury they inflicted on the people of any given community in which they operate is incalculable. Narcotics traffickers who embed themselves in occupied or ablmdoned/vacant homes, buildings, and other outposts normally used for clandestine drug operations, are specifically targeted because they essentially occupy the neighborhood, terrorize the community, recruit local youngsters to work for them with offerings of cash and promises of an "easy life," and put lives at risk solely to benefit the criminal enterprise. Haddonfield, NJ o Philadelphia, PA o Hackensack, NJ o Princeton, NJ Flemington, NJ o Wilmington, DE o Shrewsbury, NJ'oGeorgetown, DE o New York, NY Barbara S. Rosenberg, Esquire November 12, 2012 Page2 PNTF has two pUI'poses; the prosecution of those most violent and feared drug dealers and traffickers; then the civil asset forteiture of the ptoceeds gained from dealing drugs, i.&. the confiscation of homes, cars, jewelry, cash and other valuables. Because we had geographical prosecution of many types of crimes, including narcotics, Scott and his partner, Clarence Dupree, became well known to the members of various communities to which they were assigned. Scott met with them on a regular basis and at all hours of the day and evening, Scott and Clarence worked closely with these wonderful people as they were most directly impacted by the violence that drugs carries with it. Making connections and being an honest, trusted law enforcement officer tends to get the neighbors to eventually trust us with invaluable information which otherwise would be withheld because of the high risk of death for being a "snitch.'; It is essential that no informant source information ever be revealed and to my knowledge, none ever was. Scott and Clru·ence always protected the community while, at the same time, being very capable and honorable prosecutors. The other part of Scott's work was closing what is euphemistically called "nuisance bars." These are neighborhood drinking establishments, sometimes bars, clubs, or speakeasies, where shootings, killings, fights, prostitution and violent confrontations are routine. These kinds of places are not a "nuisance" in the ordinary sense of that word. Instead, these places ruin the fabric of a community and are the source of innumerable calls to the police usually in the hours supposed to be when most people in the community are asleep. The number of violent disputes, shootings and killings in and just outside of these establishments is truly astounding. To abate the nuisance, Scott was assigned to a given geographical location where, working with the local police and undercover law enforcement, State, local and/or Federal, he .would coordinate the investigation and then prosecute the owners and the criminals responsible for the illegal activities. If appropriate, Scott would then seek to permanently abate the "nuisance" by having the Comt forfeit the liquor license of the establishment in question, shuttering the building permanently, or for a period of years, or take other corrective actions. In addition to the many cases Scott prosecuted, he was a frequent visitor to the various communities we served. He photographed and documented the kinds of activities and products related to his work to better inform the audience, He instructed people on crime prevention programs, went to many public schools and community meetings to speak about crime and drugs, and informed the audience how we and they, working as a team, could help our neighbors. In all of these activities, as well as in his trial work I always was pleased by the maximum enthusiasm and effort Scott put into his cases and the sensitivity he displayed toward the people who were suftering because of crime. I was also impressed how many neighbors took the time to call or speak with me in person about how much their lives had changed for the better because of Scott's deep involvement in them and their neighborhood. Until Scott left the office in 2005, this was the kind of regard in which he was held. Barbara S. Rosenberg, Esquire November 12,2012 Page 3 I sincerely hope that this letter will act as an aide to you as you consider and decide the cases presently pending before the Board. If for any reason you or any member or counsel need to speak with me personally, I can be reached at the e-mail address contained herein, or my direct phone line is 215-246-3113. LMA:ab 9071256vl [fffii] TEMPLE UNIVERSITY 1:!:1 Beasley School of Law phone 215·204-7863 fax 215-204-5480 web www.law.temple.edu Office of the Dean 1719 N. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19122 (USA) JoAnne A. Epps Dean and Professor of Law October 29, 2012 ~r N~~ ~ ~~ ,:, Disciplinary Board Supreme Court of Pennsylvania c/o Otl1ce of Disciplinary Counsel 1635 Market Street, 16 1h Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 DISTRICT I OFFICE Or DISCI~GOUNS,.:;:El:..__. o:., Re: Scott Sigman ·r·-; Dear Members of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: I write in support of Scott Sigman. My name is JoAnne. Epps, and I have the honor. of .. serving as Dean ofTemple University Beasley School ofLmv. IJ1a~e known Scott since. his first \.vei&ofiaw sch~ol,'~henhe made it his busi~essto meet as ~any membe~s ofthe L~~ School ~emory is that Scott Was an active ~nd engaged student, who comtnmi.ity as possible. worked hard to support the institution through service to student organizations. My Following his graduation, I had occasional contact with Scott at bar and Temple Law School alumni events. We are professional colleagues and friends. I have not been to his home, nor has he been to mine, and we do no~ socialize together. Upon assuming the role of Dean in 2008, my contact with Scott increased in two settings, one more consistent than the other. Scott is a very active member of the Temple Law Alumni Association, serving currently as a member of its Executive Committee. The Law Alumni Executive Committee meets on a monthly basis, and as Dean I attend most meetings. Scott is also a member of the Temple American Inn of Court, and although I am not a member, the Inn maintains a strong relationship with Temple Law School, and I am an occasional guest at their events. In both of these settings, I have found Scott to be honest, honorable and to act professionally. I can speak most directly about his work on the Law Alumni Association Executive Committee. There, he has continued his commitment to serve the Law SchooL. He is always the first to volunteer, andth~ last.to bring eyentsto . conclusion. He is a reliable, engaged and supportiye alumnus, and has worked tirelessly to ... ensifre tha:tmany 'taw Altimri.i events are successfuL . My knowledge o[his Work as a membe;· of ·: . ; : .. ·.. .. _.. . ' . . . '. :, ; ' ',.. the Temple Inn of Court is less direct, but I do know that he was instrumental in the Inn's successful trip to Rome, perhaps two years ago, and that on that trip he made great efforts to ensure that the group's eonnection to Temple Law School was regularly featured. I say this not to highlight Temple Law School, but to say that tl·om my perspective, Scott has been an extraordinarily loyal and devoted alumnus, ~md it would be wrong not to acknowledge that the Law School has benefitted from his service. As the Dean of a Law School, I seek to solidify in our students an ethic of integrity. So it pains me to write this letter. I do not condone lawyer misbehavior, by Scott or anyone else. But I also understand that people make mistakes, and their mistake must be judged in the context of the person. My interactions with Scott have never given me reason to doubt his integrity. And he has given much of himself to the bar, the Inn of Court and to Temple Law School. So as you evaluate his conduct, I ask you to be merciful, as I believe Scott has much left to contribute to the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, ,u__/l. ~~ . Epps Professor of Law 1616 Walnut Street Suite 1819 Philadelphia, PA 19103 November 1, 2012 Hearing Committee Disciplinary Board ofthe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 16th Floor, Seven Penn Center 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 RE: Scott P. Sigman Dear Madam or Sir: My name is Natalie Klyashtorny and I have been a member of the Peansylvllllia Bar since 1997. I am happy to send this correspondence in support of Scott P. Sigman. I have known Mr. Sigman close to a decade. We met through our mutual involvement in the Yonng Lawyers Division of the Philadelphia Bar Association and immediately bonded over our mutual alma matters, American University and Temple University School of Law. I now consider Mr. Sigman one of my closest friends and coDf.idants. - At the time that Mr. Sigman and I :lirst ~t. he worked as an Assistant. District Attorney with the Philadelphia District Attomey' s O:fl:lee.. I can honestly say that J have ruwer met any other individual with such passion and zeal for his job. He tirelessly worked long hours to serve tho citizens of Philadelphia and make Philadelphia a safer place, His many commendations for his work at the DA's Office are evidence of that dedication. Subsequently, Mr. Sigman enteted civil practiee at Bochatto & Lentz. Mr. Sigman brought a similar commitment to his work at Bochetto & Lentz, working extremely long hours and weekends and regularly foregoing his own social and ilunily life to socialize with Mr. Bochetto and their clients, such as the Electricians Union Local 98 and John Greene, the former Sheriff of Philadelphia County. After his departure from Bochetto & Lentz, he started a multi-state law firm with his college best :friend and is now a partner in Sigman & Zlmolong, LLC. I have the utmost confidence in his legal ability and advocacy skills and have regularly referred him clients, including the brother of a close friend recently accused of homicide in a case which wss prominently featured in the news. I have and would always highly recommend Mr. Sigman as an advocate. Mr. Sigman has an excellent reputatiQn, both for his professional skills and his involvement in the Philadelphia Bar Association and other groups. I have personally worked with Mr. Sigman on the Executive Committee of the Young Lawyers Division of the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Temple Law Alumni Association Executive Committee, the Louis D. Brandeis Law Socie1;Y Executive Committee end the Temple American Inn of Court. The extent of his involvement in these groups Is unparalleled and, through those groups and his practice, he has developed close relationships with many judges, including the Honorable Sandra Mazer Moss, the Honorable Annette Rizzo, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas President Judge Pamela Pryor Dembe and tho Honorable Anno Lazarus of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, just to name a few. In :tact, he recently traveled to Italy to teach a class with Judgo Rizzo through tho JAMS Mediation Group and also accompanied Judge Moss to a dinner In Washington, D.C., honoring Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Sigman's reputation for professionalism, honesty and integrity is beyond reproach. Thank you for your attention, If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. RICHARD H. AGINS 312 MONTGOMERY AVENUE, C2 ¢ HAVERFORD, PA 1904 H 521 (860) 1593-7478 November 1, 2012 Disciplinary Board ofthe Supremo Court of Pennsylvania Re: Seott P. Slpu~n Gentlemen: 1 have known Scott P. Sigman since 2007 and have been his law partner since 2009. I originally met Mr. Sigman through a mutual acqualntance who was his college roonunate and a colleague of mine at the law :finn by which we both were formerly employed. Although I knew Mr. Sigman while I was still practicing law in Connecticut, it was only after I moved to Philadelphia that I truly became able to appreciate his unique and stellar qualities. When I first arrived in Philadelphia, Mr. Sisman and I would walk down Market Street, but our progress would be interrupted every few steps by Individuals stoppilllJ to greet him and wish him well, share a story about a mutual acquaintance, or seek his advice. I soon learned that although Philadelphia may have an elected mayor, Scott Sigman holds that office in the minds of many citizens. Mr. Sigman is tiroless in the pursuit of justice for his clients and often undertakes difficult criminal defense cases beeauso he believes in his clients' innocence, or at least in their right to a 1idr trial. He is extremely skilled as an attorney, having learned and honed his craft while an Assistant District Attorney with the Philadelphia District Attomey's Office, where he was specially assigned to prosecute serious drug offense cases for tho Narcotics Division. He was also the Weed and Seed Prosecutor for North Philadelphia and has maintained his ties with that program since leaving the D.A.' s Office. During his tenlll'C with the District Attorney's Office, Mr. Sigman prosecuted literally hundreds of csses in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and became well known to many of the judges as a skilled and honest attorney. Mr. Sigman regularly provides training sessions for the Philadelphia Police Department and is often called upon by the Fratemal Order of Police when legal asslstsnce is required. He has served as a CLE lecturer on the use of technology In the courtroom, criminal law and procedure, election law, and prosecutiog felony drug cases for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia Bar Association, PennsYJ,vania Bar Association, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute and the National Black Prosecutors Association. Currently, Mr. Sigman serves on the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association, as Treasurer of the Lawyers Club of Philadelphia, as a past cbair of the Philadelphia Bar Association YoUDg Lawyers Division, as Vice President of the Philadelphia Weed & Seed Board, and as an Executive Board Member of the Temple Law Alumni Assoclation and Temple American Inn of Court. Most recently, he was awarded the Pro Bono Publico Award by the judges of the First Judicial District, having been selected from the Criminal Division of the Philadelphia Municipal Court. As in a marriage, a small firm law partnership allows the partners to see each othel' at their best and worst moments. I am glad to say that I have yet to see Scott Sigman at his worst, but regularly and continuously see him at his best, whether it is managing internal firm operations, dealing with clients, or on a personal level, partner-topartner and frie11d·to·friend. At a recent induction ceremony, when Mr. Sigman stood to speak for his proposed inductee, the presiding judge said to the onlookers, "Ladies and Gentlemen, we will now hesr from the future solicitor general of the United States." I cannot imagine a more fitting vote of confidence. Please feel free to contact me if you require further information. truly, SHINGLES & SHINGLES, LLP A'ITOINBYB I'll' LAW 'l'llll BlliiiMIIH FBANKLIN 834 CJmaomur ST., Sm11! 206 PJI1I,Allllll'll.f'A 19107 ST..u!LI!Y M. SN~IlLilB IIVAN 9. SlllNOLBS TnT.: (215) 92S-291S I'AX: (215) 57-4-0699 illllllauiiJLAw@t:x».<c\sr.NB'I' November 2, 2012 Disciplinary Board of the Supre,me Court of Pennsylvania 7 Penn Center, 16111 Floor 1635 Market st. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Scott Sllllllan To whom It may concern: My name Is Evan Shingles. I am an attorney In the City of Philadelphia. I have known Scott Sigman from our very first day of law school over thirteen years ago. 1am proud to say that since that day, Scott has been one of my closest friends and confidants. And I would like to stress the filet that he has been my confidant because I trust Scott Implicitly. I cannot think of an Individual whom I trust more. Indeed, If I had a bag with a million dollars In It I would have no hesitation asking him to hold ontQ It for me, knowing full well that each dollar Qf It would be accounted fer. If I had a safe where 1 kept my life savings, I would entrust him with the key. I apploglze for the hypl!!rbQie but 1 feel It Important to highlight his tru~worthlness In the strongest way possible. And I am not alone In my feelings of trust for Scott. I cannot think of a C<llleague of ours whom 1know peoonally that does not feel similarly. He Is as Ppenly honest and genuine as they come. With respect ro SC<Itt'S performance as an attorney, he Js Incredibly capable, motivated and conscientious. He cares about each and every one of his clients and puts his heart and soul into every case whether It is a court appointment or private matter. He Is not greedy and money-grubbing like so many of our colleagues who engage In practices that line their pockets at the expense of their clients. Indeed I am personally aware of situations where Scott has returned fees to clients when he has felt that they would be wasting their mPney. Other attorneys WQuld dQ whatever necessary to avoid returning fees to their client but not Scott. Knowing him as I do It Is clear that SC<Itt wants tP help peQple, not enrich himself at their expense. This care and cpncem fer others is evident in everything Scott does. Just took at his history since law school. He Is Pr has been a member of over 30 associations ~nd boards Including Friends of the Red Cross, The Natkmat Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Variety Club. When In the District Attorney's office Scott was a hero to so many of our citizens through his quest to help rid the city pf drugs as part pf the DA's Special Narcotics ProsecutlPn Office and Pubtlt Nuisance TLISk Force Unit. I dare say there Isn't a pollee officer, detective, prosecutor or defense attorney who Isn't aware of Scott's unyielding work in that role. Scott Is precisely the type of man and attorney that should make us all pmud to be part pf our muchmaligned profession. I know this Is certainly the case fer me and our mutual friends and colleagues. He Is a true man of the people and I am incredibly proud to til II him my friend. .,. Very truly yours, / Evan s. s gles October 26,2012 Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel Seven Ptm11 Center lfilb Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 RE: Scott Sii!JDl!II Dear Sir/Madam: My IWilllls Mitchell Klevan and I am a proud member ofthe bar of the State of Pennsyi.Vtlllia sintlll 1976. It is my honor and pleasure to smul this letter in support of Scott Sigman. I have koown Mr. Sigman for PVIIr 10 years and have shared o:ftitlll space with him for the past fuut years. My wife and I have invited Mr. Sigman and his lovely witb, Pamela, to OlU' homo on numeroll8 Otltlasions and we share their joy in their soon to be role as parents of twins. During the time I have known Mr. Sigman I have boen witness to his performance~ as a lawyer, his conb.ibutions to the bar association and the broader legal oonununity and can attest to his fine cbaraeter and the excellent reputation he shares among his colleagues and the members of the Bench. I first met Mr. Sigman when he was a young lawyer working in the Ph.iladclphia District Attorney' 9 OffiCII. At the tim.c I was, and continue to be, an o:ffloer ofthe Louis D. Brandeis Law Society and Mr. Sigman expressed an Interest in becoming involved in our organization. Even though he was devoting tremendous energy to establlshlng himself in the profession and honing his craft, it was not enough fur him to just work for his own benefit. He bad a drive and detennlnation to give of himself fur the betterment of OlU' legal coiiiiilUllity. Since then and up to the present time, I have seen Mr. Sigman dedicate his boundless enthusiasm and energy to serving on the Executive Committee of the Brandeis Law Society, taking multiple leadcmbip positions in the MITCII£Lt II. KLEVAN, ESQ. I MITCH£11 H. Kl£VAH, LLC ~5 Market Strellt. Sultai:IOO I Phllade.hla, PA llliOZ I T: 21~..068·'198111 r: 215·568-q~5llllkliYaniPIJitlennlaw.com Office ofDlsclplinary Counsel October 26, 2012 Page2 Philadelphia Bar Association, the Temple American Inn of Court, the Temple Law Alumni Association and the Lawyers Club of Philadelphia, just to name a few. He is also a sought after lecturer and course planner in his field. I got to !mow Mr. Sigman more closely when I began shat:ing office space with hlm four years ago. I see how dedicated he is to his clients and the long hours he devotes to being the most effective advocate poasible on their behalf. I have observed Mr. Sigman in meetings with his clients and witnessed how they place their eomplete trust in him to protect their rights even though lll8.I1Y of them know they may ultimately go to prison. These past tour years Mr. Sigman has worked 1irelessly to build hls own law firm. Despite the endless hours he pours into his practice, he still makes the time to give back to the community in providing leadership in the lll8.I1Y organizations that he is dedicated to serving and in promoting pro bono services to those in need. Only yesterday, Mr. Sigman was honored by the judges of the First Judicial District with their Pro Bono Publico Award for hls commlllnent to Pro Bono. Mr. Sigman is held in hlgh esteem by members of the Bench and the Bar because he is a man of principle and is willing to turn those principles into action. He has my support and respect Sincerely, Mitchell H. Klevan MHK/gg 268 E. Heron Road Holland,PA 18966 November 5, 2012 Hearing Committee Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court ofPennsylvanla 16th Floor, Seven Penn Center 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Ssott Sigman, Attorney IDN 88151 Dear Sir/Madam: Please accept this letter as my endorsement of Scott Sigman, Esq. both personally and professionally. Scott and I first met in 1999 when I was a veteran Assistant District Attorney (hereinafter ''DA") in the Philadelphia DA's Offioo and Scott was a second-year Temple Law School student assigned to serve as my intern. Scott and I shared an offioo, and together we literally rid many of Philadelphia's nclghborhoods of crack houses, weed stores, nuisance bars and bordellos. Despite his young age, Scott Sigman had the drive, the ambit,ion and the wott ethic of a seasoned prosecutor. Eventually, I left the DA 's Office to work as tho Integrity Officer for a large Police Department and later becamo a state prosecutor, a job I have eJ1loyed for the past eleven (11) years. After graduating law school, Scott became an Assistent District Attorney at the Philadelphia DA's Office. and I watched as his career soared. I like to think that the time I spent mentoring Scott had something to do with the success he enjoyed 118 a prosecutor, but I know that it was Scott's passion for justice and his sincere desire to help others tbet motivated him to work tirelessly, often times thinking "outside of the box" , when necessary to get the job done, Because I am essentially a career prosecutor, I know many law enforcement officers. I have yet to meet one familiar with Scott who would ever question his integrity. Scott is known for defending a criminal case fairly; using sklll and not slime. Scott has been IIIIIIlCd a "Rising Star" in Super Lawyers multiple times 118 a result of his hard work and talent, and I would recooonend him (when appropriate, given my employment), whenever asked. In fact, I have so much trust in Scott's abilities that I have currently retained his services for a tiunlly matter. Finally, Scott and I have maintained a ftiendship throughout the years. He has watched my children grow up before his eyes, and I would trust him with their lives, if necessary. My family thinks of Scott as an extension of our family, and we are saddened to see him have to endure this process. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this nurtter. Dilworth Paxson" . Grcgot·y F. Cirillo gc i ,. i llo@d i !worth law.'''"" DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: (215) 575·7122 November 5, 2012 The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court c,fPA 16 111 Floor Seven Penn Center 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Rc: Scott Sigman To Whom It May Concem: I am an attorney at the Dilworth Paxs~n LLP ("Dtlworth") law tirm. I began my legal career at Dilworth in 1986 after my graduat.on from Villanova Law School. I hr:ve worked continuouBiy at Dilworth for over 26 years. I am a partner and a member or the lirm Executive Commillcc. During the course of my career, I got to know Scott Sigman through the Philadelphia Bar Association. I ilrst encountered Scolt when he served as a panelist at a CLE seminar at the Philadelphia Bench Bar Conference in Atlantic City, New Jersey. I have known him approximately l 0 years. I currently sit on the Lawyers Club Board with Scott and he scn·es as the Treasurer. He is both an energetic and dedicated trial attorney. Prior to private practice. he was an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia County tor many years where he prosecuted numerous criminal cases. After leaving the Di!:trict Allorney's Otlice, he became employed with the law of'liccs of Bochetto & Lentz. I had one legal dealing with Scott. 1:1 2007. I was a candidate t(ll' the Lol\'cr :VIcrion Board of Commissioners in Montgomery Cour.ty, Pennsylvania. I lost the election by 6 \'otes and there was a court ordered recount. .I knew S ¢:otl was involved in election law recounts while working with (ieorge Bochetto at Bochetto &; Lentz. I called upon Scott to assist me in the recount. Scott took a clay out of his busy schedule, diligently represented me pro bono in that mutter, and was enthusiastic iu so doing. I was very gracious lor that represe:.1tation and expressed my appreciation to both Scott and George. After that time, my wife and I got to know Scott and his wife, Pam. I subsequently came to learn through Scott that he and George had iiOmc type of "falling out," although I do not know the details of that situation. I felt bad atler learning of that situation. l knew that Scott and George had become very close. Although I knew George previously, I got to know George better through Scott and to this day consider George a friend also. As such, I offered to help in any way possible, including mediating a resolution betwec:n them but was never called upon to l0062231..1 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court ot'PA November 5, 2012 Page 2 do so by either Scott or George. I know that George is an established and succcssf'.il attorney and Scott is just in the beginning stages of his career. I wm; hopeful that an amicable resolution could have been reached so that Scott could move J'mward and utilize his talents and git\s on bchall' of his dients. I hope this information proves helpful and if you nee:d anything else lhlm me at this time, please let me know. Very truly yours, ' . " ¢ Gregory F. Cirillo GFC:dcf I00622JU Joseph Bologna 7512 Battersby Street Philadelphia Pa 19152 November 7, 2012 To: The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court ofPe.msylvania My name is Joseph Bologna I am a Captain with the Philadelphia Police Department. I have known Mr. Scott P. Sigman since 2003; we began our relationship when he was an Assistant District Attorney for Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. I have grown to have the utmost respect for hint as a person and lawyer. His performance as a District Attorney has been outstanding, and his work ethic is unparalleled. I have personal knowledge of his work when he was a member with both the Public Nuisance Task Force and the Dangerous Offender Narcotics Unit. He has conducted himself in an utmost professional manner, and his character is unwavering. If I could be of further assistance or answer any questions ple!lse feel free to contact me at 267-207-1433. Sincerely, Joseph Bologna Tina Willis November 1, 2012 Disciplinary Board of the Suprmne Court of Pennsylvania, My name is Tina Willis lllld I am a Philadelphia Police Officer. I have known Scott Sigmllll for approximately 10 years~, My professional friendship with Scott began when. he was an Assistance District Attorney working for the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. Since then, I have known him well and gained a personal friendship with him. Scott has always been consummate, professional and his integrity is beyond approach. While llll.Assistant District Attorney, Mr. Sigman served the community in North Philadelphia where I am assigned (24th Police District, East Police Division). He regularly attended community meeting after work and made an active effort to keep our neighborhood safe by prosecuting some ofth!l worst drog dealers and violent offenders in our area.. Scott served on the Weed & Seed Board with me in a PoliCIII'Community effort to clean up selected areas ofNorth Philadelphia. He spent many hours, often in a volunteer capacity to assist our community. He often joined me, our Captain, and the community on weekends and at night, After leaving the District Attorney's Office in July of2005, Scott stayed active in helping our community by taking a civilian position with the North Philadelphia Weed & Seed where he currently serves as its. Vice President. Scott volunteers many hours at night and on weekends to help fight crime and make our community a safer place working with the Weed & Seed and with Anthony Murphy, the Executive Director. of Operation Town Watch. Jn addition to knowing Scott through work, I also know him and his pregnant wife Pamela. I know Scott as a good friend and a person of high integrity who will put himself before others. I know myself, the officers I work with, and the community has a high regard for Scott and his work in the East Police Division and with the Police Department's Narcotics Bureau. I would happily discuss Scott's work in our community and his integrity with anyone on the Board. If you should have any questions, contact me at 267-249-5338 Sincerely, Tina Willis 6637 N If' Street ¢ Philadelphia,PA 19126,.-dinanwillis@yahoo.CQm - 267-249-5338 To whom it may concern, I am writing this letter on behalf of my best and closest friend since we were in the 4th grade, Scott Sigman. Scott and I met in 4lh grade, at Pine Road elementary school in 1985 and we have been friends ever since. From the first day I met him as 9 year olds, Scott has always told me he wanted to be a lawyer, and he will not stop until he becomes one. I have followed Scott since then, and he has always amazed me with the love that he has for being a lawyer. While most kids were playing sports, and video games, Scott was always reading hooks, newspapers, magazines, and whatever he could get his hands on to further educate himself. He was always ahead of the curve as to what was going on in community politics. I remember him dressing up as Ronald Reagan for Halloween one yesr. Scott was destined to become a lawyer and a politician to serve people. I will never forget his love for elections. When there was an election of any kind, you could always find Scott working the polls as a young kid, whether it be shaking people's hands or handing out flyers, Scott was just always around that stuff. As time went on, and we got older, Scott's dream of being a lawyer only got bigger and bigger and he worked harder and harder. His first license plate as a 16 year old kid was "SPS ESQ". Again, while other kids dreamed of meeting Michael Jordan or tried to emulate Dr. J or Mike Schmidt, Scott has his focus on current events, lawyers, and politicians. I remember his childhood bedroom covered in pictures and posters of Scott meeting different people :from John Fox, Ed Rendell, Bill Clinton, and the list goes on and on. Scott would keep me for hours telling me stories on how he met the people he dreamt of meeting. He is very proud of the thousands of relationships that he has forged since he was a little kid, and to this day displays his pictures on the walls of his office, his phone, and his website. The one constant thing in Scott's life that I wanted to share with you is his work ethic. I have never met another person in our age group with a stronger work ethic. When we were in High School, Scott worked for both my brother Adam at his gas station and he also worked at my Uncle Alan's business, Karl's Children's Store in Philadelphia. He would go to school and then drive in to center city to work a few hours at Karl's, and then he would drive back to the Northeast to work a shift at my brother's gas station. As time went on, he became both my Uncle and brothers right hand man. If there was a tough job that needed to be done, Scott was their man. If my uncle needed a crib delivered in the middle of the night, he'd call Scott. If he needed someone to meet with a great customer, he would always send Scott. It didn't matter when or what it was, Scott devoted his life to his work. My Uncle, who has passed away, considered Scott family. Scott and I would often have celebrations together so that my uncle and my entire family could celebrate with both of us. Scott would wear a suit and tie whenever he would be around my uncle. When Scott attended American University in Washington DC, he would often take a train up to help my uncle at the store on a weekend. He had the keys and alarm codes to my uncle's store as a 16 year old kid. Scott always does things one way, and that is the right way. Scott never takes short cuts. He works harder than anyone I know. He Is devoted to his clients, colleagues, friends, and family. He is a one of a kind person, and in my opinion, he is such an asset to this community both professionally and personally. He would do anything in his power to help the City of Philadelphia, as he just has a love for the city. He helps people in need. I was very proud of him for winning an award for doing the most Pro Bono work in the Philadelphia Courts. I am proud of all of the charitable groups that he is involved with, The awards, accolades, accomplishments will and should continue to follow Scott and his career as a lawyer. He worked very hard to be where he is today and I know that for a fact. I have followed Scott's career since 4th grade, and was at his elementary, middle, and high school graduations. I attended his graduation from American University with my entire family, and I also was at his law school graduation from Temple. I'll never forget waking up early on Saturday mornings to watch his mock trials at school. I was so proud of him when I'd come to Philadelphia and watch him work as an Assistant D.A. under Lynne Abraham. And to this day, I will go down to watch him defend cases in court and I just sit there amazed that this person has been my best and closest friend since 4th grade. I will close my letter now, and I appreciate you taking the time to read it. Scott is a true gem in this world in every aspect. Sincerely, Jason Reiver BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 43 DB 2012 v. Atty. Reg. No. 88151 SCOTT PHILIP SIGMAN, Respondent (Philadelphia) VERIFICATION The statements Petition In Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) knowledge, the Support contairied Of in the Discipline On foregoing Joint Consent Under are true and correct to the best of our information and belief and are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~1'>7k !3/ dol« Date Date ~ Richard Hernandez Disciplinary Counsel Esquire BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 43 DB 2012 v. Atty. Reg. No. 88151 SCOTT PHILIP SIGMAN, Respondent (Philadelphia) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Respondent, Scott Philip Sigman, hereby states that he consents to the imposition of a suspension of thirty months jointly as recommended Disciplinary Counsel, in Support of Petitioner, by Office of and Respondent in the Joint Petition Discipline on Consent 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 and has Martin consulted with Barbara S. L. Trichon, Esquire, Rosenberg, Esquire, in connection with the is presently pending decision to consent to discipline; 2. He is aware that there a disciplinary proceeding at 43 DB 2012 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. He consents because he knows that if the charges pending at No. 43 DB 2012 continued to be prosecuted, could not successfully defend against them. ScQJ;,-t..-Philip~ire Respondent Sworn to and subscribed I3 before me this day of ;h'l 1J~6ut- , 2012. N<JiirYPublic COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSY.!,VANIA Anna i'JII"l···;;. aty of .. My Co~< \lbllc " .. ¢unty ·- , LOIS MEMBER, PENNsYLVANIA ASSQUATION Of NOTARIES 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.