No. 2172, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 2172 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 182 DB 2014 v. Attorney Registration No. 7851 DONALD B. CORRIERE, Respondent (Northampton County) ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 18th day of June, 2015, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated May 26, 2015, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby granted pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 215(g), and it is ORDERED that Donald B. Carriere is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of five years, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Respondent shall pay costs incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. A True Cop~ Patricia Nicola As Of 6/18/LO!S ~ }uiJl.J Att.est: Ch1ef Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. No. 182 DB 2014 Attorney Registration No. 7851 DONALD B. CORRIERE Respondent (Northampton County) 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 Jane G. Penny, P. Brennan Hart, and Andrew J. Trevelise, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent . filed in the above-captioned matter on March 30, 2015. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a five year suspension and recommends to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that the attached Petition be Granted. The Panel further recommends that any necessary expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter shall be paid by the respondent-attorney as a condition to the grant of the Petition. Jane G. Pen , Panel Chair The Disciplinary Board of tb Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Date: BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 182 DB 2014 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Attorney Reg. No. 7851 DONALD B. CORRIERE, Respondent (Northampton County) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) Petitioner, (hereinafter, Counsel, "ODC•) by Ramona and .Respondent, Office the Pau l Killion, J. Mariani, Donald "Respondent•), of Disciplinary Disciplinary Counsel Disciplinary Carriere, B. Chief Counsel Esquire and (hereinafter respectfully petition the Disciplinary Board support of discipline on consent, of Disciplinary Enforcement in pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule ("Pa.R.D.E.•) 215(d), and in support thereof state: 1. ODC, whose principal office is situated at Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, 2700, 601 Commonwealth Pennsylvania with the power 17106, is Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Avenue, invested, and duty to P.O. Box pursuant investigate all 62485, to Suite Harrisburg, Pa.R.D.E. matters 207, involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practic'F waw in , !LIED MAR 3 0 2015 Th Of·flco· c1 Hi" .....................,,.. ru D' " "" r~~"'"'~ ... ~...... j! e ISCipr:r.:::ry Oc:::-d of tilo Supremo Court of Pcnn3ylvanio the Commonwealth Pennsylvania of and prosecute to all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions of the aforesaid Enforcement Rules. 2. 1939, Respondent, Donald B. Carriere, was born on June 1, is 75 years old and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth on November 15, 1965. Respondent status and his last registered address is 433 E. Bethlehem, PA 18016. is on retired Broad Street, Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED Respondent's 3. consent to the affidavit recommended stating, discipline is inter alia, attached his hereto as facts as Exhibit A. 4. During the time related in this Petition, the firm Haber, period December practiced as "of counsel" to the Respondent practiced as a partner at Carriere approximately relevant of Backenstoe & 2009. ( "HC&B") Thereafter, through Respondent with the firm Corriere & Andres and also operated his own law firm, the Law Offices of Donald B. Carriere. I. 5. Ratushny/Thomas Kathryne A. Kile ("Ms. Kile") died on July 3, 2008. 2 6. Ms. Kile died testate, and his partner at that time, with a Will naming Respondent Richard Haber, Esquire ("Haber") as co-executors. 7. As Respondent acknowledges, in or around 2004, Haber scaled back his workload and rarely came to the office. 8. Further, Respondent as has admitted, thereafter Respondent was "the only officer and director who was actively practicing law for Haber, Carriere and Backenstoe." 9. On renunciation July as 2008, 8' Respondent co-executor of submitted Kile the estate Haber's to the Northampton County Register of Wills. 10. On July 16, 2008, the Northampton County Register of Wills appointed Respondent the Executor of Ms. Kile's estate. 11. Ms. Kile had two daughters: Robin Thomas ("Ms. Kile, suffered from Thomas") and Randi Ratushny ("Ms. Ratushny") 12. Ms. Ratushny, who lived with Ms. both addiction and mental health issues. 13. retitled Several several years prior to her bank accounts as joint death, tenant Ms. with Kile right had of survivorship with Ms. Thomas. 14. By codicil, Ms. Kile' s estate to Ms. Ratushny. 3 will left the balance of her 15. various Respondent began estate administration by liquidating estate assets and depositing them into the Haber Carriere & Backenstoe IOLTA, Keystone Nazareth Bank & Trust National Penn Bank), account No. (hereinafter 9006128 (now "HC&B IOLTA") . 16. the for Respondent failed to open any separate estate account Kile Estate funds, although the estate funds were neither nominal in amount nor qualified funds within the meaning of RPC 1.15 (a) (9). 17. July Respondent's $26,329.26, Ms. 16, behalf On and 2008, staff a pursuant to member his direction, representing the liquidated value of Ms. Thomas's shared bank account at KNBT Bank, acting on deposited Kile's and into the HC&B IOLTA. 18. for Also on July 16, 2008, Respondent drew check No. 11943 $2, 500. 00 from the HC&B IOLTA, made the check payable to HC&B, and Catherine Mackes, a member of the administrative staff at HC&B, wrote on the memorandum line "Legal Fees Robin Thomas." 19. Ms. Thomas had not engaged either Respondent or HC&B to perform any legal services on her behalf at that time, and had not authorized Respondent to pay himself or HC&B any legal fees. 4 20. On July 23, 2008, Respondent wrote letters to Wachovia Bank and Keystone Nazareth Bank advising the banks that he had been appointed Executor of the estate of Kathryne Kile and that he was seeking information about the date of death valuations for Ms. Kile's accounts at those two institutions. 21. that If the case went to hearing, Ms. Thomas would testify on July lawyer and a that she 23, 2008, Michael member of HC&B, relinquish all Corriere, called Ms. joint accounts Respondent's Thomas and son, a suggested she had held with her mother to HC&B for HC&B to use for Ms. Ratushny's care. 22. Ms. Thomas knew that Ms. addiction and mental health issues, Ratushny suffered and as a result, from Ms. Thomas agreed to relinquish the joint bank accounts. 23. On or around July 24, 2008, Ms. Thomas Wachovia Bank and liquated the following accounts: went to Certificate of Deposit account No. 247402302398697 with an approximate value of $67,569.47; approximate checking value of account $725.93; and No. 1010126362624 money market with account an No. 1010126362747 with an approximate value of $19,969.29. 24. Ms. Thomas used the liquidated funds to purchase Wachovia Bank Official Check # 1402071635 for $88,356.94 payable to herself. 5 25. the On that same date, HC&B offices in July 24, Bethlehem 2008, and met Ms. with Thomas went to Respondent and Michael Corriere. 26. and Ms. Thomas signed a "Designation of Custodian of Funds Authorization to Make Disbursement" (the "Designation") which was prepared by Respondent. 27. Ms. Thomas gave the check for $88,356.94 to Respondent and Michael Corriere sister, Ms. Ratushny. were given to HC&B, for the •support and maintenance" of her While Respondent contends that the checks the "Designation" does not reference the firm anywhere, but instead references only Michael Corriere. 28. for Ms. Thomas Ms. Ratushny's also authorized Michael welfare, the Corriere $26,329.26 to use, Respondent had already deposited into the HC&B IOLTA. 29. The Designation absolute discretion" benefit and also gave to disburse authorized Michael the Corriere funds Michael for Ms. Corriere "sole and Ratushny' s to receive "reasonable compensation" for his efforts. 3 0. Despite the direction in the Designation, took primary responsibility for the payment of Respondent bills and the management of the Kile Estate funds and the money received from Ms. Thomas. 6 31. Respondent would testify that he informed Ms. that since Respondent and Sharon, HC&B, were administering her an administrative employee of estate, mother's Respondent and Sharon handled estate matters would be more efficient Thomas if Respondent and for and since the firm, Sharon handled it the custodial account. 32. In addition to the amounts enumerated in Paragraphs 17 and 24, by October 14, 2008, Respondent had deposited other Kile Estate assets amounting to $27,591.66 for a total of $142,277.86 into the HC&B IOLTA on behalf of the Kile Estate or Ratushny. 33. On October 17, 2008, Respondent filed the PA Rev-1500 Inheritance Tax Return and drew check No. 12162 from the HC&B IOLTA for $3,241.70 to pay inheritance tax for the Kile Estate. 34. On Schedule H of the return, Respondent claimed attorney's fees of $8,859.00. 35. On March 17, 2009, Respondent filed a Status Report under Rule 6.12 with the Register of Wills stating that the Kile Estate administration was complete. 36. Respondent and, to a lesser extent, regularly signed checks directly Ratushny' s bills, including, from the Michael Carriere HC&B but not limited to, to her health care, utilities, telephone and taxes. 7 IOLTA for Ms. bills related 37. Despite the fact that he failed to set up any separate escrow account in which to hold either Kile Estate funds or the funds given to him by Ms. Thomas for Ms. Ratushny's care, Respondent has admitted that he charged a fee of $2,500.00 for the purpose of "setting included and administering" Ms. Ratushny' s Respondent would testify that the fee of "custodial account." $2,500.00 up the first six months of administering the "custodial account." 38. 2009 from In addition, the HC&B Respondent IOLTA which removed fees he during 2008 and attributed to the Kile Estate/Ratushny account totaling $15,906.36. 39. Respondent claims that Ms. Ratushny orally authorized him to take $100.00 per week in fees. 40. Respondent did not have any written fee agreement with Ms. Ratushny authorizing the payment of fees. 41. No. 12343 On January 13, for $75,000.00 2009, Respondent drew HC&B IOLTA check payable to HC&B. Respondent would testify that Catharine Mackes prepared the memo line identifying the monies as belonging to the "Kile estate." deposited into savings account No. at Embassy Bank, Those funds were 1771101 in the name of HC&B to which only Respondent and Catherine Mackes were authorized signers. 42. The HC&B Embassy account is not an IOLTA Account. 8 43. 44. into The HC&B Embassy account is not an escrow account. By the HC&B funds he the Kile Embassy account, acknowledged that legal fees client custodial of and/or Ratushny co-mingled in violation of RPC Carriere and funds fiduciary 1.15 (b), the HC&B Embassy account Haber, fees.• Estate Respondent with non-fiduciary funds has hold depositing was Backenstoe as used to and "non- Respondent takes the position that the funds deposited were solely from the Ratushny custodial account as the Kile estate had, by then, been closed. 45. Respondent failed to hold the $75,000.00 in trust, as the balance in the HC&B Embassy account dropped below $75,000.00 by July 7, Kile Estate 2009, or without Ms. transactions pertaining to either the Ratushny occurring in 2, Respondent the HC&B Embassy account. 4 6. On November Treasurer's previously interest, 47. the HC&B of Kile check 2 0 0 9, for withdrawn $76,892.46, funds purchased which labelled as an Embassy represented "Kile Estate• the plus and deposited those funds back into the HC&B IOLTA. Despite IOLTA, returning Respondent Estate/Ratushny the Kile Estate/Ratushny used only $1,446.26 before closing zero balance on October 12, 2010. 9 the for HC&B funds to the benefit IOLTA with a 48. As of that date, ODC calculates that Respondent was required to be holding at least $40,105.82 attributable to the estate of Kathryn Kile, and at least $32,922.00 attributable to Ms. Ratushny's custodial account. 49. In an Answer Respondent filed to a lawsuit pending in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas captioned Haber v. Corriere, Respondent claimed that Ms. Ratushny' s funds "were transferred to the Haber Carriere and Backenstoe escrow account at Embassy Bank. In further answer thereto, the funds were later redeposited into the Haber Carriere and Backenstoe escrow and trustee account and the remaining balance of the funds were thereafter transferred to the IOLTA Account of Donald B. Carriere, Esquire." 50. That claim is and was false as none of the Kile Estate or Ratushny funds were ever transferred from the HC&B IOLTA to the Donald B. Carriere, Esquire, IOLTA account. 51. Further, the HC&B Embassy Bank Account was not an escrow account. 52. Respondent disbursements of continued funds to to pay bills make for Ms. small Ratushny periodic through February 14, 2011, with later disbursements being made from the Donald B. Carriere IOLTA, despite 10 the fact that none of Ms. Ratushny' s funds had ever been transferred to or deposited to the Donald B. Carriere IOLTA. In 53. or around February of Respondent, 2011, or an administrative staff person acting on his behalf, telephoned Ms. Ratushny and told her that only remained $5,000.00 in the Respondent would testify that he has no "custodial account." recollection of this event. Ms. 54. Ratushny, Thomas would testify that after speaking with Ms. Ms. Thomas telephoned the office and spoke with "Sharon" who advised her that an accounting of funds would cost $500.00. 55. Ms. subsequently Thomas called Ms. would further Thomas back testify and told that her Sharon that some additional monies had been located. 56. Ms. By letter dated February 14, 2011, Respondent wrote to Thomas and stated, agreed that he could among other things, close the that Ms. account and Thomas had disburse the remaining funds to Ms. Ratushny. 57. Respondent sent a similar letter to Ms. Ratushny dated February 24, 2011, the B. Donald enclosing a check for $13,111.77, Carriere, IOLTA, disbursements made on her behalf. 11 as well as a paid from list of 58. monies Respondent in the wrote fund to were ethically appropriate Ms. Ratushny Robin's for me to and meet that not "since the it is not discuss the yours with and/or matter with you.• 59. Respondent's inconsistent with statements his later Ms. to claim to ODC Ratushny that Ms. are Ratushny authorized his fees. 60. well The short amount of the Respondent amount he refunded to should have Ms. Ratushny fell been holding on her behalf. 61. the Further, funds of the monies paid to Ms. other clients, as Ratushny consisted of Respondent had spent and converted all of the Kile Estate and Ratushny funds at the time he closed the HC&B IOLTA account. 62. he spent After crediting Respondent for the amounts he claims on Ms. as Respondent's Ratushny' s bank records, behalf, as well as partially his confirmed by fees, Respondent converted and spent at least $50,622.73 of Ms. Ratushny's funds. 63. The Ratushny was list of expenditures incorrect, as Respondent provided to ODC, but not limited to, it Respondent and a provided to Ms. subsequent contain multiple errors accounting including, inflated and incorrect amounts for certain bills, as listed below: 12 From Randi Ratushny's custodial accounting: Date Check # a. 07/16/08 11943 b. 09/16/08 12089 c. 09/22/08 12095 d. 09/30/08 12115 e. 10/21/08 12162 f. 11/17/08 12223 g. 12/19/08 122 86 h. 01/13/08 12296 i. 01/12/09 1233 0 j. 02/04/09 12397 k. 02/04/09 12398 12446 l. 03/04/09 m. 07/13/09 12767 n. 10/02/09 12933 o. 12/01/09 13124 64. Payee Account Entry HC&B $ 2,600.00 The Oil Man $ 1,162.35 Bucks Cty Clerk of Cts $ 857.51 Northampton Co Crim Div $ 1,230.00 Register of Wills, Agt $ 3,240.00 Capital One $ 2,871.75 Gary Peters, DDS $ 220.00 Bethlehem Sewage $ 840.00 The Oil Man $ 207.42 The Oil Man $ 521.83 St. Luke's Hospital $ 121.65 Bank of America $ 2,987.00 HC&B $ 2,600.00 Pa Dept of Rev - Cig Tax$ 2,803.94 St. Luke's Phys Grp $ 33.55 TOTAL $22,297.00 Respondent provided ODC purportedly reflecting how funds Estate and the Ratushny Funds with $ 2,500.00 $ 162.35 $ 357.51 $ 230.00 $ 3,241.70 $ 2,471.75 $ $ 222.00 470.00 $ 107.42 $ 321.83 $ 12. 65 $ 1,987.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,403.94 $ 32.55 $15,720.70 separate were spent that Actual check amt accountings from both the Kile reflected the same bills being charged against both, as follows: Date a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j . k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. v. w. x. y. 08/18/08 08/22/08 08/25/08 09/15/08 09/15/08 09/15/08 09/15/08 09/16/08 09/16/08 09/17/08 09/19/08 09/19/08 09/15/08 09/22/08 09/22/08 09/25/08 09/25/08 09/26/08 09/26/08 09/30/08 10/10/08 10/14/08 10/14/08 10/14/08 10/14/08 Check # 12008 12016 12019 12062 12063 12064 12087 12088 12089 12085 12083 12090 12084 12086 12095 12099 12110 12097 12096 12115 12145 12122 12131 12133 12134 Payee Kile EstateAmt Service Electric Cable $ 131. 63 Berks Credit & Call., 93.67 $ Health Network Lab. PP&L 33.35 $ 42.88 $ Verizon $ 108.67 Service Electric Cable $ 115.46 St. Luke's Phys Grp $ 216.54 St. Luke's Health Netwk $ 183.70 The Oil Man $ 162.35 Penn Credit (for LV Phys) $ 30.85 Hellertown Family FootCare$ 53.78 Tammy Keller (Transp) 75.00 $ Progressive Phys Assoc 29.71 $ Saucon Valley Sch Dist $2,597.83 Bucks County Clerk of Cts$ 357.51 Verizon 69.92 $ Chris Remmel, Optician $ 545.00 St. Luke's Phys Grp 93.67 $ World Fin'l Network Bank $ 124.72 Northampton Co Crim Div $ 230.00 HC&B $ 436.00 James Emlen $ 115.00 PPL 65.93 $ St. Luke's Health Network$ 183.70 St. Luke's Health Network$ 100.18 13 Ratushny Amt $ 131. 63 93.67 $ 33.35 $ 42.88 $ $ 108.67 $ 115.46 $ 216.54 $ 183.70 $1,162.35 30.85 $ 53.78 $ 75.00 $ 29.71 $ $2,597.83 $ 857.51 69.92 $ $ 545.00 93.67 $ $ 124.72 $1,230.00 $ 436.00 $ 115.00 65.93 $ $ 183.70 $ 100.18 z. aa. bb. cc. dd. ee. ff. gg. hh. ii. jj . 10/14/08 10/15/08 10/15/08 10/15/08 10/21/08 11/06/08 11/14/08 11/17/08 11/17/08 11/17/08 12/09/08 65. erroneous 12136 12130 12132 12135 12162 12185 12219 12216 12217 12218 12138 Smale T/A The Good Guys Verizon Service Electric Cable Progressive Phys Assoc Register of Wills 1 Agent Gary Peters, DDS The Oil Man Allstate Insurance Capital Blue Cross Verizon Cressman's Lawn Care TOTAL Respondent's as accounting Respondent for neglected to $ 78.50 $ 70.08 $ 113.76 $ 130.29 $3,241.70 $ 124.00 $ 448.58 $ 522. 82 $ 83. 92 $ 75.75 $1,095.00 $12,181.45 the $ 78.58 $ 70.08 $ 113.76 $ 130.29 $3,240.00 $ 124.00 $ 448.58 $ 522.82 $ 83.92 $ 75.75 $1,095.00 $14,679.83 Kile include at Estate least was three deposits of Kile Estate funds, consisting of a deposit of: a. $26,329.26 on July 16, 2008, which represented the proceeds from Ms. Kile' s checking account at National Penn Bank, and which was made payable to the "Estate of Kathryn Kile," endorsed to Donald Carriere, Executor, and deposited into the HC&B IOLTA; b. $6,120.61 on October 9, 2008, from Met Life for a life insurance payment, payable to "Donald B. Carriere, Ex UW Kathryne A. Kile," endorsed by Respondent and deposited into the HC&B IOLTA; and c . $12 8 . 2 4 on October 9, 2008, from St. Luke's Hospital payable to Kathryne A. Kile, endorsed to Donald Carriere, Executor, Estate of Kathryne Kile, and deposited into the HC&B IOLTA. 66. Considering the multiple errors in accounting grossly reduced the value of the Kile Estate and Ms. which Ratushny's "custodial account" as well as the unauthorized conversions from each, the failure to safeguard funds, and the comingling of funds, Respondent charged excessive fees for the work performed. 14 67. Ms. Ratushny died on September 18, 2012, after she filed a disciplinary complaint but before the ODC audit had been completed and Complaint Respondent by the had first Respondent's Position been placed Letter on Seeking notice (hereinafter "DB-7 letter") the Statement a of of dated June 6, 2013. 68. Ms. Ratushny's Will named James G. Emlen her Executor. 69. Ms. Ratushny's sister, Ms. Thomas, is also a named beneficiary under Ms. Ratushny's Will. 70. On February 6, 2013, Ms. Thomas filed a Petition to Appoint and Disqualify Executor for the Estate of Randi Ratushny (the "Petition"). 71. In the Petition, Ms. Thomas alleged, ·among other things, that Mr. Emlen was not qualified to serve as Executor of Ms. Ratushny's estate. 72. Respondent represented James G. Emlen in his capacity as Executor and beneficiary under Ms. Ratushny's Will. 73. On behalf of Mr. Emlen, Respondent denied those allegations. 74. pursuant Further, to 42 Michael Corriere, Respondent Pa.C.S.A. sought §7535 on a the declaratory basis that committed a drafting error in Ms. judgment his Ratushny' s Will when Ms. Ratushny named Ms. Thomas as a beneficiary. 15 son, 75. A conflict of interest existed between Respondent and Mr. Emlen. 76. At the end of October of 2013, attorney local Christopher Spadoni, Esquire, received a "referral" with respect to Mr. Emlen. that If called at a hearing, Mr. Spadoni would-testify Respondent referred Mr. Emlen to Mr. Spadoni with the explanation that a conflict existed because of "mismanagement of a custodial account" that had occurred with respect to Ms. Ratushny's funds. 77. Further, Mr. orally informed Mr. Spadoni Spadoni would that testify that the amount of the Respondent claim was $37,790.98. 78. Respondent never formally withdrew on the record from the representation of Mr. Emlen in the litigation brought by Ms. Thomas in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, although Respondent following contends receipt Respondent's Respondent that of Position would the he first ( "DB-7 testify ceased that to represent Letter Seeking letter") the Court withdrawal during the call of the list, dated was a Mr. Emlen Statement June 6, informed of 2013. of despite the fact his that the docket continues to reflect Respondent as one of Mr. Emlen's counsel. II. Martin & Virginia Jandris 16 79. On July 16, 2004, Martin J. Jandris died intestate in Hellertown, Pa. 80. Mr. Jandris was survived by his wife, Virginia Jandris and two daughters, Annette J. Skibo and C. Christine Rosati. 81. Mrs. Jandris initially hired Attorney Bradford D. Wagner to represent her in connection with her husband's estate. 82. Mr. Wagrier filed tl:ie PA Rev-l50Cl Inheritance Tax on May 27, 2005. 83. However, the outstanding asbestos estate remained open lawsuits which were as a result of being pursued by the Peter G. Angelos Law Firm. 84. Between January 14, 2009 and October 26, 2009' Respondent deposited into the HC&B IOLTA twelve checks totaling $22,034.90 from Virginia L. the Jandris, Peter G. Angelos Law Firm, Personal Representative of the payable to Estate of Martin J. Jandris, c/o Donald B. Carriere, Esquire. 85. During the same period, Respondent took fees on five occasions totaling $5,600.00. 86. were It clearly is ODC' s excessive position that as the only the fees Respondent demonstrable Respondent performed was martialing estate assets. 17 legal took work 87. On December 9, 2009, Respondent opened the Corriere IOLTA at KNBT Bank and began depositing newly received Jandris funds into that account. 88. with a On October 12, zero balance, attributable to 2010, Respondent closed the HC&B IOLTA although at the estate that of time $6,945.21 of funds Martin Jandris undistributed and should have been held inviolate remained in the HC&B IOLTA. 89. Virginia Jandris died testate on February 22, 2013. 90. At the time of her death, Respondent still held undistributed Martin Jandris estate funds. 91. Respondent never informed the Angelos Law firm of Mrs. Jandris's death. 92. Mrs. Jandris's Executor, Steven Rosati, engaged Respondent to act as the estate attorney. 93. In the DB-7 letter sent on June 6, Respondent with failing to distribute 2013, $13,045.21 ODC charged in funds attributable to the Martin Jandris Estate. 94. but not That figure was based on an audit of the HC&B IOLTA, the Corriere IOLTA, as ODC did not have any Corriere IOLTA bank records at that time. 95. In addition, ODC requested Respondent accounting for the "Jandris Estate." 18 to produce an 96. On August 2013, 1' Respondent provided accounting which consisted only of the Jandris to the HC&B IOLTA, and not the funds the position that received funds assets and it was his were exempt therefore, belief received and Respondent takes that the subsequently from taxation and were the asbestos funds an funds deposited Respondent subsequently deposited to the Carriere IOLTA. ODC were not probate the personal property of Mrs. Jandris. 97. Respondent did not disclose in the accounting or in his response to ODC that the Jandris accounting represented only a partial accounting of funds received. 98. With claimed that he respect to the undistributed "contacted the personal funds, Respondent representative for the Virginia Jandris Estate and advised him of the accounting error and made immediate payment of the amount due." 99. That payment was made after receipt of the DB-7 letter dated June 6, 2013. 100. The check was not drawn from the Carriere IOLTA, but from a separate Carriere Attorney Account. 101. Respondent wrote the check in the amount of $10,100.30. 102. The check Respondent wrote was undated, but the letter enclosing the check is dated June 27, 2013. 19 103. Subsequently obtained bank records demonstrated that additional Jandris estate funds were received and deposited to the Carriere IOLTA beginning in January of 2010. 104. Between January of 2010 and September of 2010' Respondent received $22,980.90 from the Angelos Law firm. 105. From that amount, Respondent took an additional $5,905.30 in "fees.• 106. As of September of 2010, the month the last check from the Angelos $16,000.00 firm of was received, Virginia Respondent Jandris's money, was none holding of over which was the $10,100.30, ODC distributed until ODC raised questions in June of 2013. 107. After Respondent made payment of calculated that an additional $6,490.21 remained undistributed. 108. In response to that specific allegation, made in the DB-7AAA letter sent on July 22, 2014, Respondent claimed that he made payment of taxes, fees and legal fees for work performed in connection with the Virginia Jandris estate and that there were no further undistributed funds. Respondent produced no records to demonstrate the veracity of that claim. 109. Further, Mrs. after the Jandris' s funds had estate, Jandris died in February of 2 013, been received in connection and years after those funds distributed to her. 20 with years Martin should have been 110. Despite the fact that Respondent acknowledges receipt of the Jandris Inheritance funds, Tax he Return failed he to list prepared them anywhere on the for the Virginia Jandris Estate on May 20, 2013. 111. Instead, it was only after receipt of ODC's first DB-7 letter questioning the disposition of Jandris funds that Respondent filed a Supplemental Return dated July 8, 2013. 112. In the supplemental total of as: return Respondent $2 7, 121. 54 additional dollars, "(1) cash funds death $19,618.14; (2) of decedent reported a describing those distributed to Estate sum funds after funds received by Estate from settlement of wrongful death claim after death by decedent $7,503.40." 113. The $19,618.14 consists of the $10,100.30 paid to the estate after being contacted by ODC, Respondent as well as an additional $9,517.84 he subsequently admitted that he held. 114. The excessive fees Respondent considering the customary charges for percentage of estate the charged the Jandris estate were work performed and the ordinary and estate work, assets which assessed on is a generally sliding a scale depending upon the total amount of assets collected. 115. In summary, Respondent deposited $45.,015.80 in Jandris funds from Peter G. Angelos into the HC&B IOLTA or the Corriere IOLTA. He distributed $25,980.60 to beneficiaries, 21 paid costs of $414.69 and paid himself fees of $12,130.30. As set forth in Paragraph 107 above, ODC calculates that Respondent failed to distribute $6,490.21. 116. The fees to which Respondent would have been entitled as an estate attorney for the monies collected in connection with the Jandris estate based on the schedule in use in Lehigh County amount to $3,051.03. 117. In contrast, Respondent took a total of $12,130.30 in fees, for an excess of $9,079.27. 118. Therefore Respondent owes the Jandris estate $6,490.21 undistributed and $9,079.27 in excess fees for a total of $15,569.48. ~ The Snyder Estates 119. In 1995 Respondent drafted Richard E. Snyder's will. 120. The executors, will and also nominated Respondent specifically stated and that Haber they as could cobe compensated as executors or attorneys, but not both. 121. Mr. Snyder's will left the residue of his estate to Ann Wegener. 122. Mr. Snyder died on March valued at about $152,000.00. 22 27, 2007, with an estate 123. On April 10, probate in 2007, Northampton Mr. County Snyder's will was admitted to and Respondent and Haber were appointed co-executors. 124. On April 25, 2007, Marie E. Snyder, Mr. Snyder's wife, represented by Christopher Spadoni, Esquire, filed an "Election to Take Against Will and Conveyances" seeking an elective share of Mr. Snyder's estate. 125. The parties agreed to a settlement that gave Ms. Snyder one-third of the estate. 126. In 2007, Respondent filed the REV-1500 Inheritance Tax Return and paid taxes of $10,339.30. 127. Respondent claimed attorney's fees at that time of $9,571.00. 128. Mr. Snyder's estate also consisted of contingent litigation claims, both for himself and his mother, Erma Snyder, who had predeceased Mr. Snyder. 129. Michael Schneider Lalli, represented Erma Esquire, Snyder of in a Silverman Vioxx Trotman action filed and in federal court in 2002. 130. In addition to her son, Erma Snyder was survived by a daughter Barbara J. Thomas. 131. By letter dated October 5, Michael Lalli and told Mr. 2007, Respondent wrote to Lalli that Mr. Snyder had died and 23 that Respondent and Haber had been appointed co-executors of Mr. Snyder's estate. 132. On April 15, 2008, Respondent filed a Status Report under Rule 6.12 stating that administration of Richard Snyder's Estate was complete. 133. Thereafter, Respondent received two checks from the US Treasury payable to Dec'd, received on May 28, the $1,000.00 first and the Haber second & on Corriere, July Exec. , Richard Snyder, in the amount of 2008, 1, 2008, in the amount of $300.00. 134. Respondent converted those checks by depositing them directly into the Haber Corriere & Backenstoe operating account. 135. In addition, Respondent began to receive periodic Peter G. asbestos settlement payments from the Law offices of Angelos, payable B. to "Donald Corriere & Richard J. Haber, Personal Representatives, Estate of Richard Snyder." 136. Respondent converted the first three checks received by depositing them directly into the Haber Corriere & Backenstoe operating account. 137. Those November 13, checks 2008; consisted of $325.61, deposited $750.00 deposited on December 15, $63.75 deposited on October 19, 2009. 24 2008 on and 138. On April 22, the HC&B 2009, IOLTA Account "Legal Fees - by Respondent withdrew $3,200.00 from way Snyder Estate" of check No. 12589, labelled and deposited that check into the Haber Carriere & Backenstoe operating account. 139. By clients, as doing so, Respondent the HC&B IOLTA converted account funds contained of other no funds attributable to Mr. Snyder. 14 0.. Respondent never deposited additional funds attributable to Mr. Snyder's estate into the HC&B IOLTA to cover the fee taken. 141. Further, Respondent the fee had to do at taken was clearly excessive, that time as as all the estate attorney was collect estate assets. 142. Neither Respondent nor his firm were involved in the underlying personal injury litigations course of filed by Mr. Lalli's firm. 143. During the 2010, Respondent received four additional checks from the Angelos Law Firm which he deposited to the Carriere IOLTA: $396.67 deposited on February 16, 2010, $118.33 deposited on March 8, 2010, $2,183.27 deposited on March 8, 2010 and $777.71 deposited on December 16, 2010. 25 144. In settlement the for fall Erma of 2010, Snyder Mr. worth Lalli negotiated $298,556.73, a Vioxx allocated as follows: Wrongful Death Action: $ 876.94 to Silverman & Fodera, P.C. for costs; $39,389.01 to Silverman & Fodera, P.C. for legal fees; $54,506.21 to Barbara Thomas; and $54, 50 6. 21 to Haber & Carriere, as co-executors of Snyder Estate. Richard Survival Action: $ 876.95 to Silverman & Fodera, P.C., costs; $ 39,389.01 to Silverman & Fodera, P.C., legal fees; $109,012.41 to Barbara Thomas, as executrix of Erma Estate. 145. On November 1, 2010, Respondent deposited the Snyder check from Silverman & Fedora in the amount of $54,506.21, payable to "Richard Estate J. Haber Donald & Carriere, Co-Executors of Richard Snyder" to the Carriere IOLTA account. 146. Several 2010, Respondent days prior withdrew to that $10,000.00 deposit, made on October payable 27, to Haber not have Carriere & Backenstoe as "legal fees Snyder Estate." 147. On October 27, 2010' Respondent did $10,000.00 in funds attributable to the Snyder Estate(s) in the Carriere IOLTA account. 148. Respondent failed to distribute the funds received from Silverman & Fedora to Ms. Wegener and/or Marie Snyder. 26 149. Instead, on November 15, 2010, Respondent drew check no. 412 from the Carriere IOLTA payable to the Carriere & Andres IOLTA account for $65,411.26. 150. Respondent subsequently informed ODC that the funds in that check belonged to clients "Kunsman" and "Snyder." 151. On distribution November 11, 2010, from the Estate of Barbara Erma Thomas Snyder to made Estate the a of Richard Snyder in the amount of $33,498.47. 152. Respondent the claims & Andres Carriere LLC to have deposited that trustee account, but check into supplied no records to demonstrate that he actually did so. 153. On December 28, 2010, Carriere & Andres drew a check payable to Respondent for $18,000.00 which he .deposited to the Carriere IOLTA. 154. From that check, Respondent distributed $15,000.00 to himself marked "Legal fees for Snyder Estate and Litigation" and $2,846.85 to the Northampton County Register of Wills, Agent, to pay inheritance taxes. 155. On January 11, 2011, Respondent prepared a Rev-1500 Inheritance Tax Return for the Richard Snyder Estate declaring the $33,498.47 received from the Erma Snyder Estate. 156. On that return Respondent declared attorney fee, and paid taxes of $2,846.85. 27 only a $5,000.00 157. On January 13, 2011, Carriere & Andres drew a check made payable to Respondent for $10,000.00. 158. Respondent used those funds to draw a check in the to Ms. amount of $9,489.49 to Marie Snyder. 159. Respondent failed Wegener at that time, to make any distribution despite the fact that she was entitled to two-thirds of the residual Snyder estate and Ms. Snyder was only entitled to receive one-third. Respondent would testify that Ms. Wegener had moved to Germany and he was unable to locate her whereabouts at that time. 160. Respondent did not complete estate administration or make any final distribution until July of 2013, after receiving ODC's first DB-7 letter. 161. On or around July 11, 2013, Respondent prepared a REV1500 Inheritance Tax Return and declared $24,506.20, a $5,000.00 distribution attorney in the fee, and amount paid of taxes $2,450.62, on and as well as the declared subsequently $579.70 on October 1, 2013, both paid from the Carriere IOLTA. 162. The amount Respondent declared does not correlate with any distribution he received; as the amount Respondent received in November 2010 for the wrongful death action was $54,506.21. 163. To the extent that the amount Respondent consists of a portion of wrongful death proceeds, 28 declared he failed to report the total amount of attorney fees he took to either beneficiary through any separate accounting. 164. On July 9, 2013, Respondent distributed $8,168.74 to Ms. Snyder. 165. At or around Snyder's attorney, Mr. that time, Respondent provided Ms. Spadoni, with a copy of the Inheritance Tax Return that declared only $24,506.20. 166. Mr. Spadoni would testify that receipt Inheritance Tax Return led him to believe that all of the Respondent had received was $24,506.20, and not $54,506.21. 167. Mr. failed funds to Spadoni disclose for over to two would Mr. and further Spadoni one testify the half fact years that that Respondent he before had held making any distribution to Ms. Snyder. 168. Finally, also failed to Mr. Spadoni disclose to would him testify the full that Respondent amount in fees Respondent had taken from the funds. 169. On July 10, 2013, Respondent distributed $16,132.13 to Ann Wegener; and on August 6, 2013, Respondent distributed $13,861.84 to Ann Wegener. 170. Respondent's bank records reveal that he $93,920.02 in funds attributable to the Snyder Estate. 29 deposited 171. From those funds, Respondent took fees totaling $32,139.36. 172. Using for estate the work Lehigh County Orphans' as a guideline, Court fee took Respondent schedule clearly excessive fees totaling $25,909.56 from the Snyder estate. 173. In summary, Respondent deposited $93,920.02 in Snyder funds. He distributed $47,652.20 to beneficiaries, paid costs of $5,932.17 and took fees totaling $32,139.36. He failed to distribute $8,196.29. 174. ODC calculates that Respondent owes the Snyder Estate $8,196.29 in undistributed funds and $25,909.56 in excess fees for a total of $34,105.85. 175. On May 13, Respondent produced a 2014, in response to a subpoena from ODC, "ledger statement" for the Snyder estate which included only the funds he reported on the inheritance tax returns, $58, 004.67, described as "Net Proceeds Received from Decedent's Mother." 176. In July 22, response 2014, to a Respondent subsequent produced DB-7AAA a letter type-written sent on document labelled "Account of the Funds Received By the Estate of Richard E. Snyder From the Claims of Erma Snyder and Other Funds Received by the Estate After Completion of the Initial Account" 30 which contained different figures than those previously provided to ODC. example, 177. For in the later account, Respondent accurately listed the full amount of proceeds received from Ms. Snyder's death, although Respondent left out other funds received. 178. Respondent also claimed that 2008 and supra, 2009, as described in the amounts paragraphs Nos. received in 140 and 144 were "reimbursement for costs" made by deposits directly to the HC&B Operating Account, although Respondent supplied no itemization or proof that he actually paid any costs. 179. In his first account to ODC Respondent claimed $30,000.00 in legal fees. 180. In his second account Respondent claimed $35,000.00 in legal fees, $2,439.36 in costs, and an additional $2,000.00 legal fee he describes as "undisbursed." 181. By providing conflicting, inaccurate and misleading "accounts," obviously prepared well after the Snyder estate had closed and Respondent all both funds made were false failed to disclose material or should statements facts have of been material Early Fees and Improper Distributions 31 fact and to ODC during the course of ODC's investigation. IV. disbursed, 182. Respondent regularly deducted legal fees from his IOLTA account prior to their receipt. 183. By doing so, Respondent regularly converted other clients' funds and was out of trust. 184. For example, Respondent represented Arthur Bangor in connection with divorce proceedings in Northampton County. 185. On April 29, 2008, Respondent withdrew $3,123.15 from the HC&B IOLTA by check payable to HC&B and deposited the check into the HC&B operating account, noting "Art Bangor" on the deposit slip. At the time, there were no Bangor funds on deposit in the HC&B IOLTA. 186. In delivered honored. the fee his a defense, check Respondent to .Respondent's claims that secretary Mr. that Bangor was not Therefore, Respondent states that at the time he drew from his funds on that there IOLTA account he believed he had the Bangor deposit. was subsequently, Respondent a problem states with sought repayment. Mr. he learned Bangor's "much later" payment, and Nonetheless, Respondent did not return the Bangor funds he had taken from his IOLTA account. 187. It was not until nearly one year later, on March 12, 2009, that Mr. Bangor wrote a check to Respondent in the amount of $3,123.15, with the memo section stating "Divorce C. v. A. Bangor." 32 Bangor 188. Council Reid Cowan died on January 12, 2009. 189. On made, March 12, 2009, before Respondent drew check No. $6,875.00, any Cowan deposits 12498 from the HC&B noted it as •Legal Fees Cowan Estate" were IOLTA for and deposited it to the HC&B operating account. 190. Five deposited Council days later, into the HC&B Reid Cowan, on March IOLTA a Mark R. 17, 2009, Respondent check drawn on the Cowan Executor, estate of in the amount of $46,875.00 with the memo section of the check stating •Taxes & Legal Fees.• 191. On April 3, 2009, Respondent payable to the Register of Wills, drew Agent, check No. 12518 for $3 9, 3 76. 00 to pay the Cowan Estate Taxes. 192. Without any further deposits from the Cowan Estate, and having already distributed all Cowan Estate funds, 13, 2009, $6,875.00 Respondent in fees withdrew a attributable second to check the No. Cowan on April 12566 Estate, for and deposited it to the HC&B Operating Account. 193. There were no account for the subsequent Cowan Estate; deposits therefore, to the Respondent HC&B IOLTA converted other clients' money when he took the second Cowan fee. 194. Respondent maintained a states separate that estate the account 33 Executor, for the Mark Cowan Cowan, Estate. According to Respondent, the second fee he took was legitimately due and owing from the estate, although Respondent acknowledges that he "mistakenly" took the second fee from the IOLTA. Respondent states that he raised the issue with Mark Cowan who paid the balance of the owed fees. Respondent also claims to have subsequently deposited that fee to the IOLTA account, but he supplied no proof of the same and the records that ODC has do not substantiate that claim. 195. Respondent and/or David Backenstoe represented the Estate of Dennis A. Stout. 196. The primary estate asset was Mr. Stout's residence, but an ejectment action needed to first be undertaken before the residence could be sold. 197. On $60,000.00, September 30, 2009, the residence with the proceeds of $62,134.99, was sold for including refunded taxes, being deposited into the HC&B IOLTA. 198. On October 2, 2009, Respondent filed an Inventory with the Register $75,176.96, of and Wills filed a reflecting Supplemental total estate Rev-1500 assets of Inheritance Tax Return and paid the tax due of $1,565.53. 199. On or about October 8, 2009, Respondent made a partial distribution of $10,000.00 each to the two Stout beneficiaries. 34 200. At that time, Stout estate, $18,500.00 of funds attributable to the deposited to the HC&B IOLTA, remained undistributed. 201. Respondent spent or otherwise converted those funds. 202. On or about April 21, 2010, because there were no longer sufficient funds in the HC&B IOLTA to make distribution, Respondent made distribution to each of the two Stout beneficiaries totaling $18,500.00 from the Carriere IOLTA. 203. By making distribution from the Carriere IOLTA without any corresponding deposits attributable to the Stout estate, Respondent converted other clients' funds. 204. In addition to Respondent removed fees the specific instances noted above, or costs from the HC&B IOLTA prior to their receipt in 107 instances during 2008-2009, as reflected on Exhibit "A" to this Petition. 205. The number of days in which fees were taken prematurely range from as little as 1 day before receipt to 362 days early. 206. In at least five instances, Respondent never deposited sufficient funds to cover the premature fees. 207. Respondent regularly made payments to credit cards directly from HC&B IOLTA Account No. 9006128 as follows: a. On June 24, 2009, check no. 12721 for $5,000.00, on July 22, 2009, check no. 12791 for $5,000.00, on 35 August 24, 2009, check 12871 for $5,000.00, and on September 28, 2009, check No. 12950 for $5,902.79, for a total of $20,902.79, to AAA Financial Services #4264-2962-8000-8126; b. On October 16, 2009, check no. 13009 for $4,309.86 to Bank of America, #4313-0705-0852-1710; c. On June 17, 2009, check no. 12703 for $5,000.00, on July 20, 2009, check no. 12772 for $5,000.00, and on August 20, 2009 check no. 12862 for $5,000.00, for a total of $15,000.00, to Bank of America, #4888-93027871-5559; d. On July 23, 2009, check no. 12790 for $1,521.30, Chase Cardmember Services, #4640-1820-4585-9729; to e. On December 9, 2008, check no. 12271 for $300.00 to Credit Card Services (account not listed); f. On January 7, 2009, check no. 12305 for $405.00; on February 17, 2009, check no. 12430 for $425.00; on March 16, 2009, check no. 12478 for $150.00; on April 20, 2009, check no. 12575 for $380.00; on May 19, 2009, check no. 12635 for $260.00; and on June 16, 2009, check no. 12694 for $375.00; for a total of $1,995.00, to Discover Card ending in No. 0573 issued to Respondent personally; g. On July 3, 2009, check no. 12748 for $3,000.00; on July 31, 2009, check no. 12811 for $3,000.00; and on September 1, 2009, check no. 12887 for $3,003.30, for a total of $9,003.30, to RBS Card Services No. 5545-1401-0990-2473; h. On April 10, 2009, check no. 12549 for $5,000; on July 10, 2009 check no. 12754 for $7,157.02, and on August 4, 2009, check no. 12827 for $2,000.00; for a total of $14,157.02 to State Farm Acct. No. 47078815-0504-5352; i. On March 20, 2009, check no. 12509 for $5,000.00 for State Farm Acct. No. 4707-8872-2494-6176. 208. Respondent discussed in personally, made for has acknowledged subparagraph (f) ' that above, the was Discover issued to Card him but otherwise claimed to ODC that the payments were client expenses. Respondent 36 would testify that the charges made to the Discover card were to cover medical expenses for his disabled child. 209. Respondent has not furnished any proof that would demonstrate the validity of his claim that payments made to the other credit cards were made for client expenses. 210. Consequently, ODC issued subpoenas in an effort to determine to whom the cards were issued, and was able to obtain the accounts identity of the cardholder for subparagraphs (b), (c), Respondent's 211. Contrary claims, issued to an employee of Respondent's, Ms. Mackes' identified in (d) and (g). to the spouse, Eugene Mackes. those cards Catherine Mackes, were and to If called to testify, Ms. Mackes would testify that the payments made to her credit cards were not made on behalf of any client of HC&B. 212. ODC' s audit revealed that at the time those payments were made the HC&B IOLTA was already out-of-trust for client funds. 213. In addition, personal/medical associates and bills his Respondent for himself, associates' relatives, regularly his from relatives, the HCB account, as follows: i. St Luke's Hospital or affiliates ($327.98 for Edward Andres) ; 37 paid his IOLTA ii. St Luke's Hospital or affiliates ($1,112.24 for Christina Andres); ii. St Luke's Hospital or affiliates ($728.07 for David Backenstoe); iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. X. xi. Lehigh Valley Bone Muscle & Joint Edward Andres) ; ($19.73 for Lehigh Valley Pediatric Associates ($18.96 for Edward Andres) ; Aesthetica Cosmetic and Laser Surgery Center ($48.00 for Carol Carriere); General Surgical Care ($22.94 for Carol Carriere) ; Lehigh Valley Eye Center ($196.49 for Respondent); Construction Design Source ($1,400.00 spent for personal construction services which are not attributable to any client); Progressive Physicians Associates ($210.73 for David Backenstoe); Northgate Urology ($19.43 for David Backenstoe); and Peter T. Davis, DDS ($124.00 for Respondent) 214. Respondent has explained that in December of 2007, HC&B changed its health insurance in an effort to reduce costs. Accordingly, opened a the firm Medical opted for Reimbursement a deductible Savings increase, Account from and which payments could be made to cover unreimbursed health and hospital expenses. ODC' s audit, however, did not uncover deposits from the Medical Reimbursement Savings Account to the HC&B IOLTA that totalled the health care payments made from the IOLTA account. Further, even had Respondent first made a deposit to the IOLTA account to cover all of the payments, such payments should never 38 have been made through the IOLTA account which is an account intended solely to hold RPC 1.15 funds. 215. As a result of the above and other actions, Respondent caused the HC&B IOLTA and the Carriere IOLTA to be out-of-trust and to remain so for sustained periods of time. For example, Respondent went and out-of-trust on January 13, 2009 remained The maximum out- out-of-trust until at least February 28, 2011. of-trust amount was $185,767.97 on October 7, 2009. V. The Payroll System 216. HC&B had a number of bank accounts for which ODC has records, generally spanning the time frame from 2008 ' to approximately 2010. 217. Those accounts include: a. HC&B IOLTA at National Penn Bank (formerly Bank) No. 9006128 through October 12, 2010; KNBT b. HC&B Operating Acct at National Penn Bank (formerly KNBT Bank No. 9006157 through October 12, 2010; c. HC&B Savings Account at through February 1, 2010; Embassy Bank No. 1771101 d. H&C Attorney Account at First Star Savings Bank No. 531109495 through December 18, 2009; e. HC&B Corporate Payroll Account at National Penn Bank (formerly KNBT Bank) No. 9006160 through at least October 30, 2009; and f. American Abstract Account No. 530153817 at Star Savings Bank through October 29, 2008. 218. Beginning as early as December, First 2007 and continuing until November, 2009, in order to make payroll for his law firm, 39 Respondent developed a system for moving earned client fees entrusted from funds clients) in approximately increments through several of the above accounts, payroll account, without ever depositing those (not $5,000.00 into the HC&B funds into the HC&B operating account. 219. regularly In order deposited to facilitate earned client this fees system, into Respondent the HC&B IOLTA, thus, comingling firm funds with client funds. 220. Respondent has failed to provide any rational reason or purpose for this convoluted system of moving money. VI. 220. ll.espondent Failure to Keep and Maintain Appropriate Books and Records regularly interest-bearing escrow fiduciary as Pa.R.D.E. funds or failed trust required by to set accounts RPC up for 1.15(j) separate, non-qualified and and (k) ' 221(c), and instead deposited such funds into his non- segregated IOLTA accounts. 221. Further, books and records Respondent for failed fiduciary to funds maintain he appropriate held, including contemporaneously maintained ledgers including the payee, and amount of each check, date and amount of withdrawal each deposit, each transaction. 40 and and transfer, the matter date, the payor, involved for 222. Respondent was unable to accurately identify whose funds he held in the HC&B IOLTA at any specific point in time. 223. Respondent failed to maintain, either or in hard copy, records for the HC&B IOLTA. electronically Instead Respondent took the position with ODC that he "gave" the records to Richard Haber in January 2010, professed ignorance and as a with result, respect to Respondent the repeatedly transactions that occurred in the HC&B IOLTA during the years the audit covered. 224. Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct and Pa.R.D.E. A. RPC 1.1, which states that a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation; B. RPC 1.3, which states that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; C. RPC 1. 5 (a) , which states that a lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, an illegal or clearly excessive fee. or collect The factors to be considered in determining the propriety of a fee include the following: 41 (1) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; required, the questions involved, perform the novelty (2) and and legal the time and labor difficulty the skill service of requisite properly; acceptance of the that if apparent to the client, particular the employment preclude other employment by the lawyer; fee customarily similar legal and the professional in ( 5) the ( 7) by the will (4) the locality the obtained; imposed circumstances; the services; results limitations (8) charged to ( 3) likelihood, the the for amount involved the ( 6) client or time by the the nature and length of the relationship experience, with the reputation, client; and ability and of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; D. RPC not 1.5(b), which states that when the lawyer has regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; E. RPC 1. 15 (b) , property of which states client a connection with a 42 or that upon third client-lawyer receiving person relationship, in a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule otherwise permitted by law or by agreement the client or third promptly deliver to person, the a client lawyer or or with shall third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, client or third person, upon request by the shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property; F. RPC of 1. 15 (c) , the which states receipt, that maintenance complete records and disposition of Rule 1.15 Funds and property shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the client-lawyer after or Fiduciary distribution property, whichever or is relationship disposition later. A of lawyer or the shall maintain the following books and records for each Trust Account and for any other account in which Fiduciary 1.15(1): Funds (1) are held pursuant to Rule all transaction records provided to the lawyer by the Financial Institution or other investment entity, cancelled checks, 43 such as periodic statements, deposited items and records of electronic or transactions; separately and maintained (2) check ledger, register which shall include the payee, date and amount of each check, withdrawal and transfer, amount of each deposit, for each transaction. the payor, date, and and the matter involved (3) The records required by this rule may be maintained in electronic or hard copy form. electronic backed If form, up at records then are such least kept records monthly on only shall in be a separate upon receiving electronic storage device; G. RPC 1.15(d), Rule 1.15 Fiduciary Funds states that or . property Funds consistent or the client which property, notify promptly law. which with the a ar.e lawyer or third requirements of not shall person, applicable Notification of receipt of Fiduciary Funds or property to clients or other persons with a beneficial property law, interest shall continue procedure requirements in and of such to Fiduciary be rules governed by governing confidentiality and applicable to the Fiduciary entrustment; 44 Funds or the the notice H. RPC 1.15 (e), which states that except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement lawyer shall third to Rule by promptly is and full requirements of confidentiality, receive a client or that of to but and, the shall Funds by governing Fiduciary the delivery, governed rules or upon regarding Fiduciary be not client person, accounting continue and the third however, procedure the that to or disclosure shall to person, including Funds, client a third deliver entitled the or property, Provided, accounting property client 1.15 render property; law, any person request the promptly person limited third with or the the administration, notice and accounting applicable to the Fiduciary entrustment; I. RPC 1.15(g), for which states that the responsibility identifying shall be that an of account the lawyer as in a Trust whose Account name the account is held. J. RPC 1.15(h), which states that a lawyer shall not deposit the lawyer's own funds in a Trust Account except for the sole 45 purpose of paying service charges on that account, and only in an amount necessary for that purpose. K. RPC 1.15(i), which states Trust that Account a lawyer deposit into a legal expenses that have been paid in advance, shall fees and to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred, unless informed consent, confirmed handling of and fees the in client writing, expenses in a gives to the different manner; L. RPC 1.15(k), which states Funds are which placed in a investment not all Fiduciary Non-IOLTA vehicle that Account specifically Nonqualified Funds or shall in agreed be another upon by the lawyer and the client or third person which owns the funds; M. RPC 1 . 16 (a) ( 1 ) , stated in represent commenced, which paragraph a client or, states (c) , a where that lawyer except shall as not representation has shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law; 46 N. RPC 8.1 (a), which states admission to the bar, that an applicant for or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact; 0. RPC 8.1 (b), which states admission to the bar, that or a an applicant for lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary disclose fact a matter, necessary misapprehension known arisen matter, in the respond to a an this by the or or Rule not fail to correct a person to knowingly disciplinary does not to lawful demand for admissions that shall have fail to information from authority, require except disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6; P. RPC 8.4 (a), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Conduct, Professional knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; Q. RPC 8. 4 (c) , misconduct which states that it is professional for a 47 lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; R. Pa.R.D.E. 219 (d) (1) (iii), which states that on or before July 1 of each year all persons required by this rule to pay an annual fee shall file with the Attorney Registration Office a signed form prescribed by the Attorney Registration Office in accordance with the following procedures: ( 1) The form shall set forth: (iii) The name of each financial this institution in Commonwealth in which the attorney on May 1 of the current year or at any time during the preceding 12 months held funds of a client or a third person subject to Rule 1.15 of the Professional Conduct. Pennsylvania Rules of The form shall include the name and account number for each account in which the lawyer Account holds such funds, and shall be identified as such. provided to a person holding a Corporate Consultant Counsel License License need or each The form Limited In-House a not Foreign request information required by this subparagraph; 48 IOLTA Legal the s. 221 (e) (1), Pa.R.D.E. which attorney shall maintain the that states an following books and records for each Trust Account and for any other account in which Rule 1.15 Funds are held: (1) all transaction records provided to the attorney by the Financial Institution, canceled statements, deposited items checks such in periodic whatever records and as of form, electronic transactions; and T. Pa.R.D.E. 221(e) (2) which states that an attorney shall maintain the following books and records for each Trust Account and for any other account in which register Rule. 1.15 or Funds and of each check ledger, which date and amount of each withdrawal and transfer, amount (2) held: separately maintained shall include the payee, check, are deposit, the payor, and the date, matter involved for each transaction. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE OF A FIVE-YEAR LICENSE SUSPENSION A five-year license suspension is appropriate considering both precedent and the specific facts of this case. Respondent denies knowingly converting client funds, 49 and instead attributes That explanation, even Respondent's misconduct. A the conversion to poor record keeping. if accepted, fundamental and does part excuse the of appropriately that not lawyer's handling client ignorance is no excuse, rule without any job scienter is funds. fees a early, IOLTA result account, moving earned into audit of of books and this case) regular records the audit included taking directly from the the significantly overcharging for estate work, appropriate strict liability These expenses funds recognize most of which cannot be ignorance. paying employee medical fiduciary Further, requirement. of mere a Rules The as RPC 1.15 is a revealed numerous disturbing practices, excused as acting as IOLTA account, failing to maintain (unnecessarily complicating the and a complete failure to perform any type reconciliation that would have revealed that the IOLTA account was significantly out of trust for years. Respondent accounted for has acknowledged that appropriately •custodial account." $42,500.00, which is that ODC calculates As in a money was connection result, due and handled or Ms. Ratushny' s Respondent less than $50,622.73 is with not owing. has repaid the minimum amount Respondent has also acknowledged that he should have set up separate estate accounts rather than placing those funds 50 into his IOLTA account. Finally, Respondent acknowledges an overall failure to properly maintain books and records and account for client funds. With respect to the Jandris and Snyder estates, has insisted that his fees were earned. In Jandris, claimed to have performed other work for Mrs. produced no Respondent documentation claims he to was support entitled Respondent that to Respondent Jandris, claim. a but has In Snyder, referral fee for "referring" Richard Snyder to the firm that prosecuted the Vioxx claim. Lalli, There is no evidence to substantiate that position. who performed most Snyder Vioxx matter would of the work testify in connection with the that the firm never referral fee arrangement or agreement with Respondent. the firm dealt directly Snyder's death. Respondent was with Mr. Richard Snyder up had a In fact, until Mr. The first communication the firm ever had with a letter from Respondent in October of 2007, advising the firm of Richard's death and that Respondent acted as the Executor of Richard Snyder's further testify litigation. that Respondent estate. played no Respondent failed to disclose, Mr. role Lalli would in the Vioxx either to Mr. Lalli or to the Snyder beneficiaries to whom he owed a fiduciary duty, his claimed entitlement to referral fees. failed to connection accurately with the account Snyder for Estate, 51 the In fact, monies misleading Respondent received Ms. in Snyder's Mr. attorney, received into Spadoni, appreciably less money distributions until after calculates ODC that in that than he Respondent actually had had in Finally, Respondent failed to make connection with the estate. final believing either commenced the the Respondent Snyder As audit. still or Jandris of this estates date, ODC owes both estates money that has not been repaid. There is ample precedent 123 DB 2014 support a (approving (2014) discipline on consent for a a joint to the Disciplinary Counsel joint petition administration v. for year license petition for five-year license suspension where Respondent-Attorney engaged in conversion, prejudicial five See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. suspension in this case. DiOrio, to of neglect justice); 27 DB 2012 Landis, discipline on consent (2012) where and conduct Office of (approving a Respondent engaged in neglect and conversion in two estate matters); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Quinn, 33 DB 2010 (2012) (approving a joint petition for discipline on consent where Respondent had a criminal conviction for driving under the influence and engaged in conversion in one estate matter) In contrast, similar matters that are litigated because of a respondent's failure or refusal to admit misconduct tend to result in disbarment. 52 See, e.g., Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. 125 DB Nattiel, 2012 (2015) In mitigation, Respondent has practiced law for almost 50 years with no history of discipline. Respondent had a long and distinguished career in Northampton County, including serving as the District Attorney during the years 1980-1992. HC&B ran after the into financial firm's the same time, practice and real difficulties in or around 2008-2009, estate practice essentially folded. Respondent's partner, Haber, rarely The firm of came into the At had scaled back his office. As a result, Respondent would testify that he felt extreme pressure to make payroll for his administrative employees and the other lawyers. In turn, Respondent acknowledges that this "pressure" resulted in "fee checks [being] issued when the client's fee payment had been to delivered." expected be As noted, the effectively disbanded in or around December of 2009. firm HC&B Respondent is currently retired and does not plan to resume the practice of law. By entering into this joint consent petition and admitting the factual allegations contained herein, Respondent is acknowledging his misconduct. WHEREFORE, Joint Petitioners respectfully Honorable Board: a. Approve this Petition; and 53 pray that your b. File a recommendation for and this Petition with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION, Attorney Registration No. 20955, Chief Disciplinary Counsel ~s&TE7 --+~Nomon~ 21\...""-·. ~NA •·L---/-----'---'=;:; UA MARIANI, _\.. Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Registration Number 78466 Office of Disciplinary Counsel Suite 170, 820 Adams Avenue Trooper, PA 19403 (610) 650-8210 DATE DONALD B. CORRIERE Respondent DATE 1 I nsel for Respondent 54 VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Joint Petition In Support of Discipline on Consent Discipline are true and correct belief to the and are made best of subject my knowledge or information to the penalties of 18 §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 5 ciplinary Counsel DATE DONALD B. CORRIERE Respondent and Pa.C.S.A. BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 182 DB 2014 v. Attorney Reg. No. 7851 DONALD B. CORRIERE, Respondent (Northampton County) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon all parties of record in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of 204 Pa. Code (relating to service by a participant) . First Class and Overnight Mail, as follows: James C. Schwartzman, Esquire Stevens & Lee 1818 Market Street, 29th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Counsel for Donald B. Corriere, Esquire) Dated: Disciplinary Couns Attorney Registration No. 78466 Office of Disciplinary Counsel Suite 170, 820 Adams Avenue Trooper, PA 19403 (610) 650- 8210 §89.22 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 182 DB 2014 v. Attorney Reg. No. 7851 DONALD B. CORRIERE, Respondent (Northampton County) AFFIDAVIT B. Carriere, the Donald Joint support of Consent Pursuant to hereby Petition Pa.R.D.E. tenders in this affidavit in of Discipline on Support 215(d), and further states as follows: 1. He freely and voluntarily consents to the proposed discipline; he is not being subjected to coercion or duress; he is and fully he aware of the has consulted implications of with counsel submitting the consent; in connection with the decision to consent to discipline. 2. proceeding He is aware involving that there allegations that is presently he has pending a guilty of been misconduct as set forth in the Consent Petition. 3. He acknowledges that the material the Petition are true. facts set forth in 4. to be He consents because he knows that if charges continued prosecuted in the pending proceeding, he could successfully defend against them. Signed this \ ~ ~ay of vv-1'\-fL~ ' 2015. DONALD B. CORRIERE Attorney Registration No. 7851 Sworn to and subscribed Before me this /'?~day of ~--A , 2015. ciba-W?> X~~ Notary Public e•• ~H OF PENN5YL'IAN111 \ COMMONW"""' Notarial Seal bile Sharon L. Newhard, N~~:~untV Oty of Bethlehem, NorthBM."V 27 2016 My eommlssiOn ExpireS >TiflN b~ NOT.ARlg <'V\ \ff.\Nll\ to9?0C11 - · MEMBER, PENN,:>• .. 2 not Received 06/08/2015 Supreme Court Western District -Q\f>ClPLINAR}' Paul J. Killion Chief Disciplinary Counsel ",-<?-~ Paul J, Burgoyne Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel OF THE lio Filed 06/08/2015 Supreme Court Western District 2172 DD3 '11" 0 Disciplinary CounseHn·Charpe Raymond S. Wierciszewekl SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Disciplinary Counsel Alan J. Davis Suzy S. Moore Harold E. Clampoll, Jr. Ramona M. Mariani Barbara Brigham Denys Dana Pirone Carosella District II Office 820 Adams Avenue Suite 170 Trooper, PA 19403 (610) 650-6210 FAX (610) 650·8213 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL www.padisciplinaryboard.org June 8, 2015 Prothonotary Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Westem District Office 801 City-County Building 414 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ATTN: John A. Vaskov, Esquire Deputy Prothonotary nn. l'-JC:., Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DONALD B. CORRIERE, No. 2172 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 182 DB 2014 Attorney Registration No. 7851 (Northampton County) Dear Mr. Vaskov: I am writing with respect to the Joint Petition in Suppmt of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter. Shortly after the filing, Respondent learned of additional information with respect to certain allegations contained in the Joint Petition. The information does not change any allegation in the Joint Petition, nor does it affect the degree of discipline agreed to or the Rule violations. Nonetheless, the patties respectfully request that the record be supplemented with this letter as an attachment or addendum to the Joint Petition. The parties agree that Paragraph 211 should contain the following information: Ms. Mackes recently acknowledged that the payments to her personal credit cm·ds were made without Respondent's authorization, and further, that when Respondent questioned her about "payments made from the IOLTA account, I diverted his attention from any such payments." In addition, she has confessed that other cards identified in Pm·agraph 207 were also personal credit cards belonging to her for which other unauthorized payments were made. Nonetheless, as noted in Par- John A. Vaskov, Esquire June 8, 2015 Page2 agraph 212, these payments were made at a time when the IOLTA account was already out of trust. They do not account for the full shortfall in the IOLTA account, nor do they absolve Respondent of his fiduciary duty to properly safeguard and account for client funds. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, ~~UV\~·aJv.·' L/~~ona Mariani Disciplinary Counsel District II Office RM:jl cc: James C. Schwartzman, Esquire, Counsel for Respondent Elaine M. Bixler, Secretary to the Disciplinary Board Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel Paul J. Burgoyne, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel Raymond S. Wierciszewski, Disciplinary Counsel-in-Charge, District II

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.