No. 1872, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 1872 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 131 DB 2011 v. Attorney Registration No. 201586 BERNARD JOSEPH HUGHES, Respondent (Philadelphia) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 301h day of January, 2013, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated September 19, 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 Bernard Joseph Hughes is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of two years, the suspension is stayed in its entirety, and he is placed on probation for a period of two years subject to the following conditions: 1. Respondent shall abstain from using cocaine or any other mind-altering chemical; 2. Respondent shall regularly attend Narcotics or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on a weekly basis; 3. A sobriety monitor shall be appointed to monitor Respondent in accordance with Disciplinary Board Rule §89.293(c) ; 4. Respondent shall establish his weekly attendance at Narcotics or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings by providing written verification to the Board on a Board-approved form ; 5. Respondent shall undergo any counseling , out-patient or in-patient treatment, prescribed by a physician or alcohol counselor; 6. Respondent shall file with the Secretary of the Board quarterly written reports; 7. With the sobriety monitor, Respondent shall: a) meet at least twice a month; b) maintain weekly telephone contact; c) provide the necessary properly executed written authorizations to verify his compliance with the required substance abuse treatment; and d) 8. cooperate fully. The appointed sobriety monitor shall: a) monitor Respondent's compliance with the terms and conditions of the order imposing probation ; b) assist Respondent in arranging any necessary professional or substance abuse treatment; c) meet with Respondent at least twice a month, and maintain weekly telephone contact with him ; d) maintain direct monthly contact with the Narcotics or Alcoholics Anonymous chapter attended by the Respondent; e) file with the Secretary of the Board quarterly written reports; and f) immediately report to the Secretary of the Board any violations by the Respondent of the terms and conditions of the probation. A True Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 1/30/Z013 ~}u;&; Attest: Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. BERNARD JOSEPH HUGHES Respondent No.131DB2011 Attorney Registration No.201586 (Philadelphia) RECOMMENDATION OF THREE-MEMBER PANEL OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, consisting of Board Members David A. Nasatir, Sal Cognetti, Jr. , and Stephen K. Todd , has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter on December 5, 2011. The Panel approves the Petition consenting to a two year suspension to be stayed in its entirety and a two year period of probation subject to the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition and recommends to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that the attached Joint Petition be Granted . The Panel further recommends that any necessary expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter shall be paid by the respondent-attorney as a cond ition to the grant of the Petition. hit.~~~ir The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Date: 9/th6/.)__ BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No . 131 DB 2011 v. Atty. Reg . No . 201586 BERNARD JOSEPH HUGHES, Respondent (Philadelphia) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC"), by Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and Harriet R . Brumberg, Disciplinary Counsel, Joseph Hughes, Esquire, of Disc ipline Disciplinary on and by Respondent, Bernard file this Joint Petition I n Support Consent under Enforcement Pennsylvania (Pa.R .D.E. ) Rule 215(d), of and respectful ly represent that: I . 1. Petitioner, PA Judicial P . O. Box pursuant Center, 62625, to whose principal office is located at 60 1 Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, Pa . R.D . E. investigate a l l BACKGROUND 207, PA with 17106 - 2625, the power Suite is 2700, invested and duty to matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admi tted to pract i ce law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylva nia and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions ~o:tf::s~d j;;_ Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. ~ : DEC: -- tU~ ..... ~- . . ·: .. .. .~ · ¢ ¢ ¢ - .,.... ¢, ,Lfl ¢ .... ~,: 2. Respondent, Bernard Joseph Hughes, was admit ted to practice law in the Commonwealth on May 19, 2006 . 3. Respondent maintains an office for the practice of law at 2503 S. 11th Street, Philadelphia, PA 4. subject Pursuant to to the Pa . R. D. E . 201(a) (1), disciplinary 19148 . Respondent jurisdiction of is the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania . II. FACTUAL ADMISSIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 5. Respondent specifically admits to the truth of the factual allegations and conclusions of law contained in paragraphs 1 t hrough 65 . III. CHARGE I: THE PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT MATTERS A. 6. Zamora, CHARGES Marco P . Zamora Matter Respondent Citation was retained Number to V00422015, represent P. Number License Marco PA 29854154, in Philadelphia Traffic Court . 7. Respondent received a legal fee to represent Mr . Zamora in his Traffic Court matter. 8. On May 3, 2010, Respondent filed an Entry of Appearance form with the Philadelphia Traffic Court on M . r Zamora's legal matter. 2 9. Phila . T.C.L.R. 106 provides, in pertinent part: (b) Timing of continuance All request. must be requests received for the by Philadelphia Traffic Court at least 48 hours before date the set for trial the or hearing .... ; and (d) Requests for Continuance on Trial Date. All requests for continuances on the day of summary trial writing, on shall be or the hearing shall court-approved presented to be form, the in and presiding judge . . .. 10 . Phila. T.C.L . R . 120(b) provides, in pertinent part: Counsel for a (b) Withdrawal of Appearance . defendant may not withdraw appearance except by leave his of or court. her The request shall be in writing ... or may be made orally in open court in the presence of the defendant. 11 . Respondent knew Mr . Zamora's Traffic Court matter was scheduled for July 6, 2010 at 9 : 00 a . m. 12. Respondent failed to arrive Mr . Zamora in his legal matter . 3 timely to represent 13 . timely, As Mr . Defendant, a result of Zamora Respondent's completed a failure Verified to arrive Statement of in which he stated that he wanted Respondent to appear to represent him at the July 6, 2010 hearing . 14 . Respondent did not comply with : Phila. a. T . C.L.R. 106 (b ) and file a reques t for continuance at least 48 hours before the scheduled trial date; Phila. b. T . C. L . R. continuance with 1 06 (d) the and Honorable request a Bernice A. DeAngelis on the day of Mr . Zamora's trial; or c. Phila . T.C . L . R. 120(b) and file a withdrawal of appearance . 15. As a result of Respondent's appear and represent Mr . Zamora, failure to time ly Judge DeAngel i s continued Mr . Zamora's Traffic Court matter . 16 . Traffic Court rescheduled Mr . Zamora's case to September 22, 2010, at 3:00p.m . in courtroom "E." 17. Respondent knew or should have known Zamora's trial was rescheduled for September 22, that 2 01 0, Mr . at 3 : 00p . m. in courtroom "E . " 18. Respondent failed to appear on September 22, 2010, at 3:00p.m. in court room "E" for Mr. Zamora's trial . 4 19. Mr. As a r esult of Respondent's failure to appear, Zamora completed a Verified Statement of Defendant, which he stated that he wanted Respondent to appear in to represent him at the September 22, 2010 hearing. 20. Mr. Zamora did not waive Respondent's appearance. 2 1. Respondent did not comply with : a. Phila. T.C.L.R . 106(b) and file a request for continuance at least 48 hours before the scheduled trial date; b . Phila. T .C. L . R. 10 6 (d) and request a continuance with Judge DeAngelis on the day of Mr. Zamora's trial; or c. Phil a . T.C.L. R. l2 0(b) and file a withdrawal of appearance . 22. diligence Respondent and failed promptness to and act appear with for reasonable Zamora's Mr. scheduled trial. 23 . On September 22, 2010, Judge DeAngelis proceeded to tri al and found Mr. Zamora guilty . 24 . Respondent's administrat ion of conduct just ice was prejudicial in that Respondent's comply with Philadelphia Local Traffic Rules to the failure to expended the limited time and resources of Philadelphia Traffic Court . 5 25 . fee to Respondent failed to refund Respondent's unearned Mr . Zamora at the termination of Respondent's representation. B. 26 . Hand, Kwamaine L . Hand Matter Respondent was retained to represent Citation Number 802117640, Kwamaine L. 802117651, 802117662, License Number PA 28560373, in Philade l phia Traffic Court . 27. On February 5, 2010, Respondent filed an Entry of Appearance form with the Philadelphia Traffic Court on Mr . Hand's legal matter . 28. Entry of On February 16, Appearance form 2010, Respondent filed a with the Philadelphia second Traffic Court on Mr. Hand's legal matter . 29 . Respondent knew Mr. Hand's Traffic Court matter was scheduled for May 19, 2010. 3 0. Respondent failed to appear on May 19, 2 010 to represent Mr. Hand in his l egal matter. 31. the As a Honorable result Earlene of Respondent's Green failure continued Mr. to appeal, Hand's legal matter until June 30, 2010. 32 . Respondent did not comply with : a. Phila . T . C.L. R . 106(b) and file a request for continuance at l east 48 hours· before the scheduled trial datei or 6 Phila . b. T.C.L.R. 106(d) and request a continuance with Judge Green on the day of Mr. Hand's trial; or c. Phi l a. T.C .L . R. 120 (b) and file a withdrawal of appearance . 33. Traffic Court rescheduled Mr. Hand's case to June 30, 2010 , at 3:00p.m. in courtroom "E." 34. Hand's Respondent trial was knew or should rescheduled for have known 30, June that 2010, Mr . at 3 : 00 p . m. in courtroom "E. " 35 . Respondent failed to appear on June 30, 2010 , at 3:0 0p.m. in courtroom "E" for Mr. Hand's trial. 36 . Respondent did not comply with : a. Phila . T. C.L . R . 10 6(b) and file a request for continuance at l east 48 hours before the schedul ed t ri al date; or b . Phila . T. C . L.R . 106(d) and request a cont inuance with the Judge DeAngel is on the d ay of Mr. Hand's trial; or c. Phil a . T.C.L.R . 120(b) and f i le a withdrawal of appear ance. 37. d i l i gence Respondent a nd failed promptness to and scheduled trial. 7 act appear with for reasonable Mr. Hand's 38. Respondent's conduct was prejudicial administration of justice in that Respondent's comply with Philadelphia Local to the failure to Traffic Rules expended the limited time and resources of Philadelphia Traffic Court . 39 . By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 6 through 38 above, Respondent violated the foll owing Rules: RPC 1.3 ( two counts), which states that a lawyer a. reasonable shall act with diligence and promptness in representing a client; b. RPC 1.16(d) which 1 states that upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the practicable to protect a such as giving extent reasonably client's interests, reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, which surrendering papers and property to the client is any advance payment entitled of fee and or refunding expense has not been earned or incurred. that The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the e x tent permitted by othe r law; and c. RPC 8.4(d) (two counts), which states that it is professional 8 misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. CHARGE II: 40 . Pa.R.D.E., In FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR AN INFORMAL ADMONITION accordance with 208 (a) (2) Rule and ( 3) , it was determined that Respondent should receive an Informal Admonition as a result of his misconduct during his representation of Joseph Ashton and Mary Jo M. Canavan, ODC File No . C1-10-744. 41. Chief By certified Disciplinary letter dated Counsel Paul February 25, 2011, Killion informed Hearing J. Committee Respondent that: a. a Reviewing Member of a had directed that Respondent s hould receive an Inf ormal 1. 3 , RPC 1.5(b), Admonition 1. 4 (a) ( 3) , for RPC 1. 1 5 (b) , RPC violating RPC 1 . 4 (a) ( 4) , RPC 1.15(i), RPC RPC 1 . 16 (d) , and RPC 8. 4 (d) ; b. Pursuant Rule to Pa . R.D .E. §87.54, 208( a) (6) Respondent demand in writing, formal proceeding b e had within 20 and the D.Bd. right days, to that a instituted against him before a hearing committee, and in the event of such demand, adminis trat ion of 9 need the not appear Informal for the Admoni t ion and the matter will be disposed of in the same manner as any other formal hearing; and c. Pursuant to D. Bd . Rule §87 . 52, Respondent's neglect or refusal to appear for an informal admonit i on without an constitute professional good cause independent misconduct automatically result in shall ac t and formal of shall proceedings relating to such act of misconduct and the grievance upon which such informal admonition was to relate . 42 . Respondent received Chief Disciplinary Counsel's certified letter before March 11, 2011 . 43. Respondent proceeding be did not instituted against demand that him with formal a regard to the allegations giving rise to the imposition of the Informal Admonition in C1-10-744 . 44 . As a result of Respondent's failure to demand the institution of is formal conclusively Professional proceedings against deemed Conduct to set have forth Counsel February 25, 2011 l etter . 10 him, violated in Chief the Respondent Rules of Disciplinary 45 . By cert if i ed letter dated March 23, 2011, Chief Disciplinary Counsel informed Respondent that: a. Respondent had previously been advised of a complaint t he it against him alleging violations of Rules was of Professional determined that Conduct in which Respondent should rece l ve an Informal Admonition; and b. Chief Disciplina ry Counsel had scheduled Respondent's Informal Admonition for Friday, April [sic] 2010 8, at 9:20 a . m. ln the Di strict I Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 46. Respondent's agent signed f or Chief Discipl inary Counsel's letter on March 25, 2011. 47. Respondent received Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Respondent failed letter . 48. to appear for his March 25, 2011 Informal Admonition . 49 . By cert ified letter dated May 13, 2011, Chief Disciplinary Counsel informed Respondent that : a. Respondent had previously been advised of a complaint against him alleging violations of the Rules it was of Professional determined that Conduct Respondent receive an Informal Admonition; and 11 in which should b. Chief Disciplinary Counsel had rescheduled Respondent's Informal Admonition for Friday, May 27, 2011 at 10 : 00 a.m . in the District I Office. 50. Respondent's agent signed for Chief Disciplinary Counsel's letter on May 16, 2011. 51. Respondent received Chi ef Disciplinary Counsel's letter. 52. Respondent fail ed to appear for his May 27, 2011 Informal Admonition . 53. Chief By certified Disc ipl inary l etter dated Counsel May to 31, 201 1 , Respondent, from Chief Disciplinary Counsel requested that Respondent advise him, within five days from Respondent's receipt of the letter, whether Respondent had "good appear for "the second time" cause" for his failure to (emphasis in original) for his Informal Admonition . 54 . Respondent received Chief Disciplinary Counsel's letter on June 2, 201 1 . 55 . Re spondent did not answer Chief Disciplinary Counsel's le tt er or provide good cause for his fa ilure to appear for his Informal Admonition. 56 . By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs through 55 above, Respondent violated the following Rules: 12 40 a. Pa .R.D .E. 203 (b) (2) which 1 provides that wilful failure to appear before the Supreme Court 1 the Board or Disciplinary Counsel for private censure 1 admonition, reprimand or informal shall be grounds for discipline; and b. RPC 8.4(d)/ which professional misconduct it is lawyer to that states for a engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 57 . from In addition to the foregoing violations resulting Respondent Admonition/ 1 failure S Respondent to is appear for conclusively violated the following Rule s of an Informal deemed Professional to have Conduct as a result of Respondent's failure to demand the institution of formal proceedings : a. RPC 1. 3 1 which states that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in represent ing a c l ient; b. RPC 1.4(a) (3) shall keep 1 which the states client that reasonabl y about the status of the mat ter ; 13 a lawyer informed c. RPC 1. 4 (a) (4 ), shall which promptly states comply that with a lawyer reas onable requests for information; d. RPC 1.5 (b) , lawyer whi ch has not states that the rep resent e d regularly when the cl i ent, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated before the client, within or to in a reasonable writing, time after a l awyer commencing the represe ntation; e. RPC 1.15(b), which shall h old all from the states funds lawyer's property that and property separate own be shall property . Such identified and app ropri ate ly safeguarded; f. RPC 1.15(i), shall fees which deposit and states into expenses a that Tr ust that a lawyer Account have been l egal paid in advance, to be wi thdrawn by the lawye r only as are fees unl ess the confirmed earned c l ient in or expenses gives writing, to i nformed the incurred, consent, handling fe es and expenses in a different manner; 14 of RPC g. which 1.16(d) , that states upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the reasonably extent practicable t o protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, which surrendering papers and property to the c l ient is any advance payment entitled of fee and or refunding expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law; and RPC h . which 8.4(d), professional states misconduct that for a it lawyer lS to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. IV. 58. the JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE Petit i oner and Respondent appropriate misconduct entirety, is and discipline a two - year two years for jointly recommend that Respondent's suspension, of admitted stayed probation with 1n its conditions, including the appointment of a sobriety monitor. 59 . being Respondent imposed by hereby the consents Supreme 15 Court to of the discipline Pennsylvania. Attached to Affidavit required consents to this the Petition by is Pa . R . D. E . Respondent's 215(d ) , recommended discipline executed stating and that he including the mandatory acknowledgements contained in Pa . R . D.E . 215 (d ) (1) t h rough ( 4) . 60. Petitioner and Respondent respectfully submit that there is the following aggravating factor : a. Respondent has three open liens against him, which total $56,630.97 . 61 . Respondent and ODC respectfully submit that there a r e the following mitigating f acto r s : a . Respondent signed has ODC's cooperated proposed with ODC and of Law St ipulations and Fact; b. By virtue Discipline expressed of on Respondent signing Consent, recognition of this Respondent his has violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct; c. If this matter were to proceed to a hearing, Respondent would be mitigation under Office Braun , 520 Pa . Counse~ v. (1 989) (see November 16 able 6, to establish of Discip~inary 157, 553 A . 2d 894 2011 letter f rom Sandra Hart, J . Ph . D . , attached hereto as Exhibit "A"); Respondent d. has subst ance ther apy abuse wi th sobriety a undergone probl ems local meetings, treatment and is going psychiatrist, and has for to attends voluntarily contacted Lawyers Concerned About Lawyers to obtain a sobriety monitor; and e. Al though Respondent receive an failed to to appear Information Admonition in C1 - 10 - 744 , Respondent has no discipline of record. 62. A two-year suspension, stayed ln i ts entirety, with two years of probation and a sobriety monitor, appropriate q uantum of discipline to be is the imposed based on t he totality of facts and circums tances presented here. General l y, discipl ine ranges from a private reprimand to a suspens i on of one - year and one day for attorneys who neglec t client matters and fail to a ppear to receive their private d iscipline. In Office of Disciplina~ Mi ddlet o n , 10 6 DB 2002 Counsel v. Clyde Kevin (8/12/2004), Middleton neglected two client matters and failed to return his unearned fee . reviewing me mber recommendation for approved an informal 17 Disciplinary admonition A Counsel's in the two But Middleton failed to appear for his informal matters. Middleton then admonition and formal charges were filed . agreed to accept a private reprimand, for his private reprimand. Supreme Court, which but failed to appear The matter was referred to the directed that M ddleton i receive a public censure. The Supreme Court increased an attorney's discipline to one year and one day when an at t or ney not only neglected client matters and fai l ed to appear for his private discipline, but also failed to appear for his disciplinary hearing . McVay , two In O££ice client 112 DB 2002 matters, III , No. o£ Disciplinary Counsel (1/31/2005), failed to reprimand on these two matters, appear to appear for his William W. McVay neglected for his private and failed to comply with conditions to the pri vate reprimand. fail e d v. formal Subsequently, disciplinary McVay hearing or The totality of participate in the disciplinary process. McVay's conduct warranted that he receive a one - year-and one-day suspension . 63. matters, Both Middleton and Respondent neglected failed to return their unearned fees, client and failed to appear for the imposition of their informal admonitions . Middleton's reprimand subsequent resulted in failure the to appear Supreme 18 Court for his private directing that Middleton receive a public censure . While Respondent did not fail to appear for a private reprimand, instructed to do so, Respondent as he was not neglected four client matters, which was double the number of client matters that Middleton neglected. misconduct Thus, mandates that the he totality of receive at Respondent's least a public censure. But unlike McVay, disciplinary process, Respondent expressed remorse for his misconduct, and cooperated with ODC . a reinstatement hearing 64 . has participated in the Therefore, lS Respondent's a suspension requiring not warranted . circumstances, however, are dissimilar to Middleton's and McVay's, in that Respondent would Braun likely Nonetheless, be able to Respondent establi s h has only rec ently sobriety, begun attendi ng sobriety meetings, therapy Given sessions Respondent's with a nascent psychiatrist. recovery, mitigation. ODC attained and instituted (See and Exhibit A) Respondent recognize that the re is a risk that Respondent may revert to his neglectful ways. monitor would not The stayed suspension and sobriety only provide Respondent with motivation and guida nce to remain sober but also serve to protect the publ i c and the courts from Respondent. 19 65 . for Accordingly, Responde n t' s Respondent entirety neg l ect receive and ODC and Respondent that a of four two-year Respondent jointly request, client suspension be placed matters, stayed on two that in its years of probation wi th a sobri ety mon i tor . WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent respectfully request that: a. Pursuant t o Pa.R.D.E . 215(e) and 215(g), the three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board review and Support of approve the Discipl ine Joint on Petition Conse n t and in file its recommendation with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recommending that the Supreme Court enter an Order that Respondent receive a two - year entirety, suspension stayed in its and that Respondent be placed on two years of probation subject to following conditions: 1. Respondent cocaine or shall and any abstain other from mind using altering chemical; 2. Respondent shall regularly attend Lawyers Concerned For Lawyers (LCL ) meetings on a weekly basis; 20 3. to A sobriety monitor monitor shall Respondent in Disciplinary Board Rule 4. Respondent Disciplinary monitor's appointed accordance with §89.293(c); shall furnish Counsel name, be with address, Office his of sobriety telephone and number; 5. Respondent attendance shall at LCL establish meetings his by weekly providing wri tten verificat ion to the Board on a Board approved f orm on a quarterly basis; 6. shall Respondent counseling, treatment, or undergo out-patient prescribed by a or any in-patient mental health professional; 7. With the sobriety monitor, Respondent shall: i) meet at least twice a month; ii ) maintain weekly telephone contact; iii) provide the necessary properly executed written authorizations to verify his compliance required treatment; and 21 substance with the abuse iv) 8. cooperate ful ly . The appointed sobrie ty monitor shall : i) monitor Respondent's with terms the and compliance conditions of the order imposing probation; ii) assist Respondent in arranging any necessary professional or substance abuse treatment; iii ) meet with twice a Respondent at least month and maintain weekly telephone c ontac t with Respondent; i v) maintain with direct the Lawyers monthly Lawyers chapter contact Concerned For attended by the Secretary of the Respondent; v) file with Board the quarterly written reports ; and vi) immediately Secretary report of the to the Board any violation by the Respondent of the t erms and probation. 22 conditions of the b. Pursuant to Pa.R.D . E. 215(i), the three - member panel of the Disciplinary Board enter an Order for Respondent to pay the necessary e xpenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter as a condition to the grant expenses of be imposi tion the paid of Petition, by and Respondent discipline that all before the under Pa . R.D . E . 215 (g) . Respectfully and jointly submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION COUNSEL By Date By Date l I 23 o IEcrcuwtE SANDRA J. HART, PH.D., CAC DIPL. THE MEDICAL TOWER BUILDING 255 S. 17TH STREET, SUITE 2708 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 om - 215.545.7207 FAX: 215.735.2447· DISTRICT 1- . Ct or DISCIPI.INAFfY COur~~El November 6, 2011 To Whom It May Concern: Bernard Hughes is a forty-two (42) year old divorced caucasian attorney who lives in South Philadelphia. Mr. Hughes has a solo criminal practice in Philadelphia. According to Mr. Hughes, he has been accused of several incidents of fail ing to carry out his professional duties because of problems he has had with substance abuse. He currently faces sanctions for these infractions and has been mandated to be evaluated by an appropriately credentialed professional. Mr. Hughes requested an evaluation from the undersigned. During the clinical interview, Mr. Hughes detailed his issues with drugs and he efforts towards sobriety and recovery. Mr. Hughes self-describes as "always been a social drinker and drug user". He admits to smoking marijuana regularly from his teens until his late thirties . Beginning in law school, he occasionally used cocaine. Mr. Hughes was divorced in 2005. After his wife left , Mr. Hughes took in a room-mate. He later realized that his room-mate was using cocaine. He was offered cocaine. Foolishly, Mr. Hughes wanted to prove to himself and to his room-mate that cocaine would have no effect on him. Within a short period of time, Mr. Hughes was addicted. Again hubris, affected Mr. Hughes decision to fight the addiction alone for one and one-half years. When he realized he was powerless over the addiction, he · called his family in Oregon and went home to enter in-patient treatment for thirty (30) days. During this period Mr. Hughes realized he had to leave Philadelphia. However, he did not act quickly enough. Mr. Hughes returned to Philadelphia. He relapsed and became deeply depressed. This continued to late 2010. ~~B~~~~~~~~ EXHIBIT A His use affected his professional life. Mr. Hughes reported that there were days · when he could not get out of bed. He suffered from bouts of paranoia. He would not always be available by telephone. It was during this period in which problems developed which gave rise to the current concerns of the Disciplinary Board. Since then Mr. Hughes has continued to work to rebuild his life. He moved to South Philadelphia, far away from his former haunts. Mr. Hughes has avoided people, places and things that could put his sobriety at risk. He attends 12 step meetings. He has just discovered the Lawyer's Meeting in Philadelphia and he plans to attend. He will be looking for a sponsor at that meeting. Mr. Hughes has begun therapy with a local psychiatrist. He has voluntarily begun working with a sobriety monitor through LCL. Mr. Hughes believes that he is making progress by studying and trying to practice Stoic philosophy in his everyday life. He will be working his program, one day at a time. In my opinion, Mr. Hughes' intelligence and intellectual bent may be used as barriers to his continued recovery. However, if he sincerely works the program, gets a strong sponsor who is an attorney; and can go toe-to-toe with him intellectually; he will have a good chance for on-going recovery. BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petition er No . 131 DB 2011 v. Atty. Reg . No. 201586 BERNARD JOSEPH HUGHES, Respondent (Philadelphia ) VERIFICATION The statements Petition In Support 215(d) , contained of in the Discipline on foregoing Consent Joint Under Rule Pa . R.D . E., are true and correct to the best of our knowledge or information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §49 04 , relating to f a lsification to authorities. II /2.2../11 By Date g Dis c iplina ry Coun s el By Date/ I unsworn BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNS EL, Petitioner No. 131 DB 2011 v. Atty. Reg. No. 201586 BERNARD JOSEPH HUGHES, Respondent (Philadelphia) AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Respondent, he consents to stayed in its Bernard Joseph Hughes, the imposition entirety, of a hereby states that two-year and two years conditions as specified and as of suspension, probation with jointly recommended by the Petitioner and Respondent in the Joint Petition In Support of Discipline on Consent, and further states that: 1. he is His not consent is freely and voluntarily rendered; being subjected to coercion or duress; he is fully aware of the implications of submitting the consent; and he has not consul ted with counsel, in connection with the decision to consent to discipline; 2. He disciplinary is aware . that proceeding at there is No. 131 presently pending DB 2011 a involving allegations that he has committed misconduct as set forth in the Joint Petition; 3. He acknowledges that the material facts set forth in the J oint Petition are true; and 4. He consents because he knows that if the charges pending at No. 131 DB 2011 continue to be prosecuted, could not successfully defend against the Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2011. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL ROSEMARY B. CULLEN, Notary Public City of Philadelphia, Phila. County My Commission Expires July 22, 2014 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.