No. 1944, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. CHRIS MATTHEW JAMISON, Respondent No. 1944 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 18 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 35597 (Delaware County) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 1ih day of June, 2013, there having been filed with this Court by Chris Matthew Jamison his verified Statement of Resignation dated April 16, 2013, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is ORDERED that the resignation of Chris Matthew Jamison is accepted; he is disbarred on consent from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E. A True Copy_ Patricia Nicola As Of 6/12/L013 Attest: ~· }V;J.W Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. No. 18 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 35597 CHRIS MATTHEW JAMISON Respondent (Delaware County) RESIGNATION BY RESPONDENT Pursuant to Rule 215 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. CHRIS MATTHEW JAMISON No. 18 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 35597 (Delaware County) PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORD None BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,: Petitioner No. 18 DB 2013 v. Atty. Registration No. 35597 CHRIS MATTHEW JAMISON, Respondent (Delaware County) RESIGNATION UNDER Pa.R.D.E. 215 Chris Matthew unconditional Commonwealth Jamison, resignation of Esquire, from Pennsylvania in the hereby practice tenders of conformity with law his in the Pa.R.D.E. 215 ("Enforcement Rules") and further states as follows: 1. He is an attorney admitted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having been admitted to the bar on December 9, 1981. His attorney registration number is 35597. 2. He desires to submit his resignation as a member of said 3. His resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered; he is bar. not being subjected to coercion or duress; and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting this resignation. 4. He is aware that there is presently pending a Petition for Discipline docketed at No. 18 DB 2013, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "A. II F ll ED MAY 0 2 2013 Office of the Secretary The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 5. He acknowledges that the material facts upon which the allegations contained in Exhibit "A" are based are true. 6. He submits the within resignation because he knows that he could not successfully defend himself against the charges of professional misconduct set forth in the attached exhibit. He is fully aware that the submission of this Resignation 7. Statement is irrevocable and that he can only apply for reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to the provisions of Enforcement Rule 218(b) and (c). 8. consult He acknowledges that he is fully aware of his right to and proceeding. counsel employ counsel to represent him in the instant He has consulted with and acted upon the advice of in connection with his decision to execute the within resignation. It is understood that the statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities). Signed this ,az- day of 2 ¢ April ' 2013. BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Petitioner, No. Chris Matthew Jamison, Respondent \B DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 35597 (Delaware County) PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Chris Matthew Jamison Rule 208(b)(3) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement provides: Within twenty (20) days of the service of a petition for discipline, the respondent-attorney shall serve an answer upon Disciplinary Counsel and file the original thereof with the Disciplinary Board. Any factual allegation that is not timely answered shall be deemed admitted. Rule 208(b)(4) provides: Following the service of the answer, if there are any issues raised by the pleadings or if the respondent-attorney requests the opportunity to be heard in mitigation, the matter shall be assigned to a hearing committee or a special master. No evidence with respect to factual allegations of the complaint that have been deemed or expressly admitted may be presented at any hearing on the matter, absent good cause shown. ********* A copy of your answer should be served upon Disciplinary Counsel at the District Ill Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite. 5800, P.O. Box 62675, Harrisburg, PA 17106-2675, and the original and three (3) conformed copies filed with the Office of the Secretary, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 5600, Harrisburg, PA 17120-0901. [Disciplinary Board Rule §89.3(a)(1)) Further, pursuant to Disciplinary Board Rule §85.13, your answer, if it contains an averment of fact not appearing of record or a denial of fact, shall contain or be accompanied by a verified-statement signed by you that the averment or denial is true based upon your personal knowledge or information .and belief. Exhibit "A" BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. v. \5 DB 2013 Attorney Reg. No. 35597 CHRIS MATTHEW ,JAMISON, Respondent (Delaware County) PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), by Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and Amelia C. Kittredge, Disciplinary Counsel, files the within Petition for Discipline and charges Respondent, Chris Matthew Jamison, with professional misconduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Bnforcement as follows: ·~ ! 1. Petitioner, whose principal office is situated at Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 2700, P.O. Box 62485, Harrisburg, ursuant to Rule 207 of the J Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 17106, Rules is invested, of Disciplinary Fll ED JAN 2 4 2013 Office of tho Secretary The Disciplinary Bo2.rd ot tho Supremo Court ci Pcr.:1sy!vaola Enforcement (hereinafter ''Pa.R.D.E.''), with the power and duty to investigate all matters admitted to attorney involving practice alleged law in misconduct the of any Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions of said Rules. 2. Respondent, Chris Natthew Jamison, was born in 1956, was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on December 9, 1981, and maintains his office at 12 S. Nonroe Street, Nedia, Delaware County, Pennsylvania 19063-0023. 3. Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Di.scipli.nary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. CHARGE I A. Conversion of Funds Due and Owing !::!2_ the Department of Public Welfare 4. From in or about. 2003, Respondent represented Adalene Catherine Kirby (Nr.s. Kirby) : a. in a claim Rosenzweig, for personal injury (Rosenzweig), D.O. against arising Alan :Erom an injury which occurred at the Brinton Manor Nursing Home (Brinton) in Glen Mills, PA, where lv:Irs _ Kirby was a resident; b. in a claim for and personal injury against Brinton arisi.ng from the same incident. 5. By letter dated December l, 2004, Respondent w.rote to the Pennsylvania bepartmenc ·of Public 2 Welfare (DPW) requesting information as to whether there was an outstanding Medicare or Medicaid lien pertaining to Mrs. Kirby, and stating that Mrs. Kirby had a pending malpractice action against Rosenzweig and Brinton. 6. By letter to Respondent dated January 20, 2005, DPW stated that it had previously informed Respondent that it had an interest in the personal injury claims made by Mrs. Kirby, and asked that Respondent send the enclosed form to DPW concerning the status of the personal injury claims, including whether there had been settlements. 7. Respondent did not return the form to DPW. 8. In settlernenL of the claim against Rosenzweig (Rosenzweig claim), Rosenzweig's insurer issued check No. 617427 settlement in $200,000, check) dated payable to February 9, 2005, (Rosenzweig the "Adalene Kirby and Chris M. amount Jamison, of her attorney." 9. Respondent received the Rosenzweig settlement check on or about February 9, 2005.. 10. On February 11, 2005, Respondent deposited the Rosenzweig settlement check i_n Respondent's Citizens Bank IOLTA account, No. 610159-594-7. 11. On February 23, 2005, Mrs. Kirby died. 12. On or about March 16, 2005, Respondent filed a Petition for Grant of Letters Testamentary in the Office of the Register of Wills of Delaware County. 3 13. On March 16, 2005, Letters Testamentary were issued to Mrs. Kirby's son, Blair Kirby, Jr. (Mr. Kirby), who was qualified as Executor of the Estate. 14. On or about March 16, 2005, Mr. Kirby engaged Respondent as counsel to the Executor. 15. On 18, March 2005, Respondent opened an account at Citizens Bank numbered 620987-692-0 and titled "Estate of Adalene Kirby, Blair Kirby Jr.'· Executor, c/o Chris M. Janison [sic], Esquire" (Estate Account). 16. Respondent failed to transfer the $200,000 from the Rosenzweig settlement into the Estate Account. 17. In settlement of the claim against Brinton, Brinton's insurer issued a check (Brinton settlement check) dated Ap.ril 22, 2005 in the amount of $137,500, payable to "Blair Kirby Executor Estate of Adalene Kirby and Chris M. Jamison, Esquire." 18. Respondent received the Brinton settlement check on or about April 22, 19. On 2005. May 2, 2005, Respondent deposited the Brinton settlement check into his Citizens Bank IOLTA account, No. 610159- 594-7. 20. Respondent failed to: a. deposit the Brinton settlement check into the Estate Account; and b. promptly forward the proceeds from the Rosenzweig 4 and Brinton settlements to Mr. Kirby in his capacity as Executor of the Kirby Estate. 21. By letter dated June 14, 2005, DPW informed Respondent that it maintained a claim in the amount of $386,533.05 against the Kirby Estate. 22. Respondent received that letter. 23. By letter to Mr. Kirby dated June 15, 2005, Respondent: a. informed Kirby of the amount of the DPW lien; and b. stated that his "next jobu was to "negotiateu with DPW so t·hat DPW would settle for one-third of the amount of the lien. 24. By letters dated December 7, 2005; February 2, 2006; March 22, 2006; and August 28, 2007, Carl G. Rinkevich (Rinkevich), a Third Party Liability Program Investigator for DPW, requested that Respondent provide information on the status of the Kirby Es·tate. 25. Respondent received those letters. 26. On ,Tune 27, 2007, Respondent spoke to Carol Beery of DPW, and told her that he would send the settlement sheet the following week. 27. By letter to Respondent dated Jcmuary 9, 2008, sent Certified Mail, Return Receipt.Requested, Rinkevich stated that: a. previously correspondence Respondent of the DPW lien; 5 was sent advising b. in addition, DPW had "left numerous voice mail messages" for Respondent on his office phone asking for the status of this case; and c. if a response was not received within fifteen days, the matter would be turned over to DPW's Office of General Counsel for their action. 28. Respondent received that letter on January 16, 2 9. Contrary to his representation to Mr. Kirby that he would "negotiate" with DPW, 2008. Respondent failed to provide DPW with the status of the Estate. 30. Certi.fied By l<ei·.t.<er t.o Respondcont Mail, Return Receipt dated October 28, Requested, Carole 2008, A. sent Procope (Procope), Manager, Recovery Section, DPW Division of Third Party Liability, stated that: a. it had been over a year since Respondent had last contac-ted DPW regarding the Kirby Estate; b. Respondent had agreed to supply the settlement documents to DPW but they had not been sent; c. DPII ¢ had made "numerous attempts over the last four years to work with" Rsspondent ~in the resolution of this matter"; d. Respondent should contact DPW to "discuss settling the Department's claims"; and 6 e. failure to contact DPW would cause DPW to refer the matter to the Office of the General Counsel to initiate litigation. 31. Respondent received Procope's letter on November 3, 2008. 32. By letter to Rinkevich dated November 2008, 12, Respondent apologized for the "delay in responding," and stated that he would forward "the documentation concerning third party recovery for your calculations on the estate obligations." 33. Contrary to his representations to Rinkevich, between November 12, 2008, and May 27, 2009, Respondent failed to: a. contact DPW; b. negotiate with DPW to reduce DPW' s lien; and c. forward the proceeds of the Estate that were due and owing to DPW. 34. Dallas By letter to Respondent dated May 27, (Dallas), Executive Deputy Secret.ary for 200 9, Theodore DPW, informed Respondent that: a. DPW was proposing to assess liability Respondent in the amount of $335,000, against because he was "the attorney for the Estate of Adaline [sic] Kirby and [he] settled a personal injury lawsuit for the estate for $335,000 in 2005"; 7 b. Respondent had promised to send DPW settlement distribution sheets at least four times; c. to date, DPW received had ''nothing" from Respondent; d. four years was an Qunreasonable amount of time to resolve distribution issues regarding personal injury proceeds"; e. the passage of time and Respondent's failure account led DPW Qto propose to conclude that to [he had] converted the funds to [his] own use"; and f. Respondent Procope could within Qidentify[ing] submit thirty any a written days, for errors of the response to purpose of fact in the Department's information." 35. Respondent received Dallas' letter on June 1, 2009. 36. By letter to Procope dated June 26, 2009, Respondent told her that: a. he regretted the delay in responding to an earlier notice from her, but he was Qsometimes overwhelmed with the volume of work"; b. both the Rosenzweig and Brinton claims had been settled; c. by Respondent's calculation, of $134,524.41; and 8 DPW was owed a total d. Respondent had distributed funds of the estate, "but we did not allow distribution of the estimated lien funds to the beneficiaries." 37. By letter to Respondent dated July 13, 2009, Rinkevich informed Respondent that DPW would accept $135,789.92 in settlement of the lien, and that a check should be sent within the next thirty days. 38. By let·ter dated August 12, 2009, Respondent wrote to Rinkevich and stated that based upon DPW's assessment of the amount owing under the lien, he would meet with the Executor and anticipated making all disbursements the week of August 24. 39. Respondent thereafter failed to: a. cormnunic:ate with DPW during the week of August 24, ?009; and/or b. forward the proceeds of the Estate due and owing to DPW. 40. By letter to Respondent dated October 29, 2009, Rinkevich again asked for a status report on the Estate. 41. By e-mail to Respondent dated October 25, 2010, Jason W. Manne (Manne), DPW's Deputy Chief Counsel, stated that it had been "well more than a year since [Respondent] promised [DPW] distribution," and that DPW was "at the point of taking formal administrative action" against Respondent and referring the matter to the Disciplinary Board. 9 42. By e-mail to Manne dated October 26, 2010, Respondent stated that the "file is organized to close out" and that he would have the Executor come to his office the following week to "cut and sign the disbursement checks, including the check to the department." 43. By letter dated December 20, 2010, sent Certified Mail, Return Receipt Request:ed, Laurie Rock (Rock), Director of the DPW Bureau of Program Integrity, Division of Third Party Liability, sent Respondent a "Notice of Assessment Liability" (Notice), in which Rock informed Respondent that: a. DPW had assessed liability against him in the amount of $135,789.92; b. DPW had concluded that Respondent had converted the funds to his own use; c. the matter was being referred to the Disciplinary Board; and d. Rock's leLter constituted the "final administrative action" of enforcement DPW and would be subject unless Respondent to judicial filed an administrative appeal. 44. Respondent received Rock's letter on December 23, 2010. 45. Upon receiving Rock's letter, Respondent: a. did not respond to the letter; and b. did not file an appeal. 10 4 6. On March 11, 2011, DPW filed a Complaint Information Form with ODC. 47. "DB-7 By letter dated February 9, 2012, ODC sent Respondent a Request for Statement of Respondent's Position (DB-7)," alleging that he had converted the proceeds of the Rosenzweig and Brinton Manor settlements, including the amounts due and owing to DPW. 48. Respondent received the DB-7 on February 13, 2012. 49. Previously, in 2008, Respondent account at Nova Bank numbered 127001378, had opened an IOLTA and no longer used the Citizens IOLTA Account. 50. On March 30, 2012, Respondent deposited a cashier's check in the amount of $110,000, payable to himself, into his Nova IOLTA Account. 51. By letter to Rinkevich dated March 30, 2012, Respondent sent DPW a check in the amount of $135,789.92, drawn on his Nova IOLTA Accoun·t, stating that the check represented "the total reimbursement" to DPW in respect of the Kirby Estate. 52. On or about April 1, 2012, Respondent sent to Disciplinary Counsel a copy of the March 30, 2012 letter and check to Rinkevich, and asked Disciplinary Counsel to "[k]indly call my cell ... at your convenience. ¢ 11 B. Conversion of Kirby Estate Funds 53. The Kirby Estate's gross receipts totaled $338,765.51, comprised of the following: a. the Rosenzweig and Brinton settlements in the amount of $337,500; and b. a refund from Sterling Health Care & Rehabilitation in the amount of $1,265.51, paid on March 16, 2005. 54. Between May 2, 2005 and March 30, 2012 Respondent made disbursements from the Kirby Estate in the following amounts, for a total of $175,738.59: a. distributions to heirs and Executor's fees in the amount of $52,290.41; b. legal fees and costs paid to Respondent in the amount of $119,339.18; c. d. Social Security overpayment of $797; and e. 55. probate fees of $272; burial cost of $3,040. The Kirby Estate was assessed Pennsylvania inheritance tax in the amount of $3,571.72. 56. In addit.i.on to failing to pay the sum of $135,789.92 owing to DPW, Respondent failed to pay' a. Pennsylvania inheritance $3,571.72; and 12 tax in the amount of b. the balance of the Estate in the amount of $23,665.28, to the Executor of the Kirby Estate. 57. Respondent misappropriated the amounts owing to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue as inheritance tax, and to the Kirby Estate. 58. During the course of his representation of Mr. Kirby, Respondent told him·that: a. DPW was seeking 7 5% of the proceeds from the Rosenzweig and Brinton Manor settlements; and b. there was no money remaining in the Estate after paying DPW. 59. Respondent's statements to Mr. Kirby were false and misleading, in that: a. in 2009, . Respondent was informed by DPW that DPW would settle the matter for $135,789. 92., far ·1 ess than 75%; and b. aft.er attorney's fees and costs, Estate, and payment to DPW, expenses of there the remained $23, 665. 28 that should have been remitted to t.he Estat.e. 13 C. 60. Respondent's Disposition of Funds Due and Owing to DPW and the Kirby Estate Respondent deposited: a. the Rosenzweig set·tlement check into his IOLTA account at Citizens Bank on February 11, 2005; and b. the Brinton settlement check into his IOLTA account on May 2, 2005. 61. Respondent. failed to p.romptly forward the proceeds from t.he Rosenzweig and Brinton Manor settlements to: a. DPW; b. Mr. Kirby, in his capacity as Executor of the Kirby Estate; and c. 62. trust the Department of Revenue. Respondent's IOLTA account at Citizens Bank was out of from February 22, 2005 to May 1, 2008, with the highest amount, $180,352.49, occurring on December 27, 2005. 63. As explained in ~49, supra, on or about April 10, 2008, Respondent opened the Nova IOLTA Account, and no longer used the Citizens Bank account. 64. Respondent's IOLTA account at Nova Bank was out of trust from: a. July 9, 2009 to September 17, 2009; b. September 25, 2009 to December 11, 2009; 14 c. d. 65. December 21, 2009 to November 30, 2010; and December 8, 2010 to January 17, 2012. Respondent knowingly and intentionally misappropriated the funds due and owing to: a. DPW; b. the Kirby Estate; and c. the Department of Revenue. D. 66. As Administration of the Kirby Estate counsel to the Executor of the Kirby Estate, Respondent failed to file with the Register of Wills of Delaware County: a. a state inheritance· tax return, pursuant to 72 assets, pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. §9136(f); b. an inven·tory of estate Pa.C.S.A. §3301(c); c. two years thereafter Status after the date of death, until Report adminislraLion by Personal uncompleted administra'cion, which the reasonably personal believes is and annually completed, Representative showing the representative or Court of date by counsel will be (O.C.) Rule admin.istration completed, pursuant to Orphans' a 6. 12 (a) ; and d. upon completion of 15 the administration of the Estate, a Report of Complet.ed Administration, pursuant to O.C. Rule 6.12(b). 67. In or about 2006, Respondent presented a nFamily Settlement Agreement" to the Executor and the beneficiaries of the Kirby Estate, providing, inter alia, that the Executor and beneficiaries agreed to waive the filing of a formal Account with the Orphans' Court, and distribution to them, that Respondent would make a partial retaining the remaining funds in the Estate to reimburse DPW. 68. Respondent obtained the signatures of the Executor and beneficiaries on the Family Set.tlement Agreement, 69. Respondent's proffer of the Family Settlement Agreement was false and misleading, the proceeds of the since Respondent had already converted Estate by 2006, and Respondent failed to reimburse DP\11 until shortly after he received the DB-7 from ODC in 2012. 7 0. above, By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs Respondent viola·ted the following Rules 4 through 69 of Professional Conduct: A. RPC with L 3, which provides reasonable that diligence a and lawyer shall act promptness in representing a client; B. RI?C 1. 4 (a) (3) [effective 1-1-05], which states that a lawyer shall keep the client 16 reasonably informed about the status of the mattei; C. RPC 1.15 (a) [effective 4-1-88], lawyer shall persons hold property that is in a which states that a of clients lawyer's or third possession in connection with a represen·tation separate from the lawyer's own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in the state where the lawyer's office is situated, or consent of client shall property the be or third account preserved funds and a period for as Complete other of with the Other person. identified appropriately safeguarded. such el~ewhere records property five and such of shall years be after termination of the representa·tion; D. RPC 1.15 (a) [effective 4-23-05], which states that a lawyer shall persons hold property that connection is from property shall safeguarded. clients in the a a with separate of lawyer's client-lawyer lawyer's be own identified Complete or possession and of in relationship property. records third Such appropriately the receipt, maintenance aud djsposition of such property shall be preserved termination of for a period of five the client-lawyer 17 years after relationship or after distribution or disposition of the property, whichever is later; E. RPC 1.15 (b) [effective 4-1-38], which states that upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permit ted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, promptly render a full shall account.ing regarding such property. F. RPC 1.15 (b) [effective 4-23-05], which states that upon receiving property of a client or third person in connection 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, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, 18 shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property; G. !\PC l. 15 (b) [effective 9-20-08], which states that a lawyer shall hold all Rule 1. 15 Funds and property separate from property the shall lawyer's be own identified property. and Such appropriately safeguarded; H. !\PC 1.15 (e) [effective 9-20-08], except as stated in this which states that Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the clj.ent or third person any property, including but not limited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, request promptly by the render property; client a full Provided, accounting and or third accounting however, dis.closure of that person, upon shall regarding the Fiduciary the d.eli very, Funds or property shall continue to be governed by the law, procedure and rulP.s governing the requi.rements of Fiduciary administration, and accounting confidentiality, applicable to the notice Fiduciary entrustment; I. RPC 8. 4 {b), which states that it 19 is professional misconduct for a lawyer to cornmi t that reflects adversely on the trustworthiness or fitness as a criminal act lawyer's honesty, lawyer in other a respects; and J. RPC 8. 4 (c) , misconduct which states for involving a lawyer dishonesty, that it is professional to engage fraud, in conduct deceit misrepresentation. CHARGE I I 71. DB-7 By letter dated February 9, 2012, ODC sent Respondent a Request for StaternenL Respondent's of Position (DB-7) alleging, inter alia, that he had misappropriated the proceeds of the Rosenzweig and Brinton settlements. 72. Respondent received the DB-7 on February 13, 2012. 73. Having received no response to the DB-7 from Respondent, ODC, by letter to Respondent dated March 13, 2012: a. stated that Respondent had not submitted an answer to the DB-7; b. reminded failure him tchat the DB-7 to answer without independent ground for had provided good cause discipline that is an pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(7); and c. advised him that if he did not respond to the allegations of misconduct in the DB-7 or provide 20 good cause for failing 2012, ODC may seek misconduct, to respond to including impose by March 2 6, discipline for violation Pa.R.D.E. of 203 (b) (7). 74. Respondent received ODC's letter of March 13, 2012. 75. To date, Respondent has failed to respond to the DB-7. 76. By letter dated November 16, 2012, ODC sent Respondent a Supplemental DB-7A alleging, should Request inter alia, have for Respondent's Position (DB-7A), that Respondent misappropriated funds that been paid to the Executor and the Department of Revenue. 77. The DB-7A provided that "[a]ll notices, advice and admonitions contained in the previous letter dated February 9, 2012 apply hereto and are incorporated herein by reference .... " 78. Respondent received the DB-7A on November 17, 2012. 79. Respondent failed, without good cause, to respond to the DB-7A. 80. above, By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 71 through 79 Respondent violated the following Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement: A. Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) {7), which states that failure by a respondent-attorney without good cause to respond to Disciplinary Counsel's request or supplemental request under Disciplinary Board Rllles, 21 § 87.7 (b) for a statement of the respondent-attorney's position, shall be grounds for discipline. WHEREFORE, pursuant to Petitioner prays that your Honorable Board appoint, Rule 205, Pa.R.D.E., a Hearing Corrunittee to hear testimony and receive evidence in support of the foregoing charges and upon completion of said hearing to make such findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recoromendations for disciplinary action as it may deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION, Chief Disciplinary Counsel BY: Amelia C. KHtredge Attorney Registration _fi·o. Disciplinary Counse~ Suite 170 820 Adams Avenue Trooper, PA 19403 22 28760 VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Petition for Discipline are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date fld· cc-~0 Amel~ ~redg~ ~ C Disciplinary Couns

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.