No. 2204, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 2204 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 34 DB 2015 v. Attorney Registration No. 17900 BARRY PAUL GINSBERG, Respondent (Montgomery County) ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2015, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is granted, see Pa.R.D.E. 215(g), and Barry Paul Ginsberg is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of three years retroactive to July 22, 2013, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. A True Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 9/Zl/L015 ~·nat~ Attest: Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. No. 34 DB 2015 Attorney Registration No. 17900 BARRY PAUL GINSBERG Respondent (Montgomery County) RECOMMENDATION OF THREE-MEMBER PANEL OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARIJ OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, consisting of Board Members Lawrence M. Kelly, Jane G. Penny and David E. Schwager, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above-captioned matter on July 21, 2015. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a three year suspension retroactive to July 22, 2013 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 b th respondent-attorney as a condition to the grant of the Petition. Date: ? /2-r:. / 2 o / J , Lawren eM. Kelly, Panel Chair The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 34 DB 2015 ODC File No. C2-11-1057 v. Attorney Reg. No. 17900 BARRY PAUL GINSBERG, Respondent (Montgomery County) JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E. Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, by Paul 'J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and Patricia A. Dugan, Disciplinary Counsel, file this Consent Joint under and Respondent, Petition Rule In 215(d), Barry Paul Ginsberg, Support· Of Pa.R.D.E., and Discipline on respectfully represent that: 1. the Petitioner, whose principal office is situated at 601 Commonwealth Avenue Suite 2700, P.O. Box 62485, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106, is Pennsylvania Judicial Center, invested, Rules of "Pa.R.D.E. "), matters admitted pursuant Rule Disciplinary 207 of the Enforcement Pennsylvania (hereinafter with the power and duty to investigate all involving to to alleged practice law misconduct in of the any attorney Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings FILED 07/21/2015 The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania brought in accordance with the various provisions of said Rules. 2. and was Respondent, Barry Paul Ginsberg, was born in 1948 admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth on October 17, 1973. 3. Respondent's public access address is 185 Gleneagles Court, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422-3246. 4. On July 22, 2013, Respondent had his registration status changed to voluntary inactive. 5. subject Pursuant to to . the Pa.R.D.E. 201 (a) (1), disciplinary Respondent jurisdiction of is the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 6. Respondent's affidavit stating, inter alia, his consent to the recommended discipline is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ADMISSIONS AND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VIOLATED Misuse of IOLTA 7. Respondent maintained Lawyers Trust Account, a On July 11, Bank Interest 2011, ('~IOLTA"). Respondent made the following payments from his IOLTA: a. on in the name of Law Offices of Barry P. Ginsberg, account no. XXXXXX9084 8. PNC a $25.00 e-check payment to Macy's; and 2 b. 9. a $20.00 e-check payment to Discover Card. On July 12, 2011, Respondent made the following payments from his IOLTA: a. a $110.85 web-single payment to Vonage America; b. a $57.00 debit payment to Citgo; c. a $54.00 e-check payment to HSBC Credit; d. a $30.00 e-check payment to Bloomingdale's; and e. 10. a $20.00 e-check payment to Capital One. On July 13, 2011, Respondent made the following payments from his IOLTA: a. b. 11. a $65.71 e-check payment to Sunoco; and a $50.00 e-check payment to Gap, Inc. On July 27, 2011, Respondent's daily balance in his IOLTA was $8,615.26. 12. On July 28, 2011, Respondent made a $250.00 debit phone payment to Capitol One from his IOLTA and a July 25, 2011 deposited account and item returned, of $9,000.00 which caused was an removed from overdraft in his his IOLTA in the amount of -$634.74. 13. On July 29, 2011, Respondent made the following transactions in his IOLTA: 3 a. two deposits ($1,200.00 and $900.00) totaling $2,100.00 into his IOLTA; and b. 14. a $480.75 e-check payment to PECO. On August 1, 2011, Respondent made a $25.00 e- check payment to RadioShack from his IOLTA. 15. On August 2, 2011, Respondent made the following payments from his IOLTA: a. a $200.00 debit phone payment to Capital One; and b. 16. a $150.00 payment to Verizon Wireless. On August 4, 2011, Respondent made the following payments from his IOLTA: a. a $250.00 telephone payment to Capital One; and b. 17. a $19.00 e-check payment to Discover. On August 5, 2011, Respondent made a $25.00 e- check payment to Exxon Mobil from his IOLTA. 18. On August 8, 2011, check #1931, in the amount of $100.00, posted to Respondent's IOLTA. 19. On August 8, 2011, Respondent made the following payments from his IOLTA: a. a $300.00 e-check payment to Capital One; b. a $150.00 telephone payment to Capitol One; and 4 c. a $50.00 e-check payment to Neiman Marcus Group. 20. The transactions listed in paragraph 19 caused an overdraft in Respondent's IOLTA in the amount of -$363.45. The previous balance in Respondent's IOLTA was $236.55. 21. On August 9, 2011, Respondent deposited $425.00 of personal funds into his IOLTA. 22. On August 15, 2011, Respondent made a $200.00 debit phone payment to Capital One from his IOLTA. 23. On August 16, 2011, Respondent made the following payments from his IOLTA: a. a $165.00 debit phone payment to Capital One; and b. 24. On a $52.25 telephone payment to Capital One. August 17, 2011, Respondent made a $100.00 a $150. 00 a $200.00 a $200.00 debit phone payment to Capital One from his IOLTA. 25. On August 19,. 2011, Respondent made debit phone payment to Capital One from his IOLTA. 26. On August 23, 2011, Respondent made telephone payment to Capital One from his IOLTA. 27. On August 26, 2011, Respondent made telephone payment to Capital One from his IOLTA. 28. On September l, 2011, Respondent made a $100.00 debit phone payment to Capital One from his IOLTA. 5 29. On September 2, 2011, Respondent made a $110.00 debit phone payment to Capital One from his IOLTA. 30. On September 22, 2011, Respondent made a $25.00 e-check payment to Macy's from his IOLTA. 31. On September 26, 2011: a. Respondent made a $54.00 e-check payment to Gap, Inc.; b. Respondent made a $42.00 e-check payment to Radioshack; and c. 32. an withdrew $750.00 from his IOLTA. The transaction listed in paragraph 31 (c) overdraft in Respondent's IOLTA in the caused amount of $36.99. 33. On September 27, 2011: a. Respondent made a $100.00 e-check payment to Capital One from his IOLTA; b. Respondent issued check #1622 to Comcast for $175.00; c. Respondent issued check #1 759 to Joel Lee for $97.18; and d. Respondent received an automatic deposit of $42.00 for reversed September 26, 2011. 6 e-check, #1627 from 34. The transactions listed in paragraph 33a-c caused overdrafts in Respondent's IOLTA totaling -$367.17. 35. On September 27, $240.00 of his own funds Respondent 2011' into his IOLTA, deposited which posted on September 28, 2011, leaving a balance of -$127.17. 36. On September 28, 2011: a. Respondent received an automatic deposit of $100.00 for reversed September 27, 2011, e-check, leaving a #1623 from balance of - $27.17 in his IOLTA; and b. Respondent received an automatic deposit of $97. 18 from September reversed 27, 2011, check, leaving #1759 a from balance of $70.01 in his IOLTA. 37. On September 29, 2011, Respondent made a $42.00 e-check payment to RadioShack from his IOLTA. 38. On September 30, 2011, Respondent issued check #1872 for $15.00 from his IOLTA, which caused an overdraft in his IOLTA in the amount of -$11.99. 39. On October 1, 2011, there were no client funds in Respondent's IOLTA. 40. for On October 3, 2011, the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund Client Security ("the Fund") received the following Dishonored Escrow/Trust Check notifications from PNC Bank: 7 a. one check had (#1627) been in the presented amount against of $42.00 Respondent's IOLTA on September 26, 2011, which caused an overdraft in the amount of -$36.00; and b. two checks $197. 18 and had Respondent's been IOLTA on #1759) totaling presented (#1623 against September 27, 2011, which caused an overdraft in the amount of $367.17. 41. On or about October 5, 2011, the Fund sent Respondent an inquiry letter and requested an explanation regarding the Bank PNC Dishonored Escrow/Trust Check Reporting Forms and any appropriate documentation. 42. On or about October 14, 2011, Respondent responded to the Fund's October 5, 2011 inquiry and stated that he had an agreement with PNC Bank wherein PNC Bank would not pay any overage on the IOLTA and would notify Respondent that of any overdrafts so Respondent could immediately deposit funds. 43. On or about October 17, 2011, the Fund notified Respondent by letter to request an explanation as to why items were presented against insufficient IOLTA and to request specific documentation. 8 funds in his 44. On October 27, 2011, Respondent responded to the Fund's October 17, 2011 inquiry and: a. admitted that the funds expended from his IOLTA were personal funds; b. stated that ("IRS") the levied Internal upon his Revenue personal Service account; and c. stated that checking he account intended once to an open a new agreement was worked out with the IRS. 45. Respondent provided the Fund with copies of his July, August, and September 2011 PNC Bank IOLTA statements. 46. According statements, from to July Respondent's 11, 2011 to PNC Bank September 29, IOLTA 2011, Respondent expended $3,872.56 from his IOLTA in electronic payments to Capital One, pay Citgo, personal expenses Discover Card, to Bloomingdale's, Exxon Mobil, Gap Inc., HSBC Credit, Macy's, Neiman Marcus Group, PECO, RadioShack, Sunoco, Verizon Wireless, and Vonage America. 47. On or about October 27, 2011, Respondent received a letter from PNC Bank that his IOLTA was overdrawn in the amount of -$97.81. 48. On or about November 9, 2011, Respondent sent the Fund a letter to notify them: 9 a. of the -$97.81 shortage in his IOLTA; b. that he "took care of [it] immediately"; and c. that his "client gave [him] a bad check" which caused the overdraft in his IOLTA. From October 1, 2011 through June 30, 2013, there 49. were approximately 620 transactions in Respondent's IOLTA, not including IOLTA interest earnings and payments. 50. Approximately approximate were 620 payments total 570 transactions transactions Respondent made to in out of Respondent's creditors the IOLTA for ·personal expenditures. 51. Respondent failed to maintain a separate account for holding non-Rule 1.15 Funds. 52. Respondent knew that his IOLTA was to be used solely for purposes of holding funds on behalf of clients or third persons. B.D. Client FUnds 53. On October 1, 2011, Respondent was representing a client (hereinafter "B.D."). 54. On or about October deposited a Tudor Insurance his IOLTA, made payable to 17, 2011, Respondent Company settlement check into Respondent amount of $4,500.00 for Claim No. XXX823T. 10 and B.D., in the 55. to B.D. On or about October 20, IOLTA check #1829, 2011, Respondent issued annotated "partial settlement," in the amount of $1,400.00. 56. Tudor Respondent Insurance kept the remaining Company settlement as $3, 100. 00 fees of the and failed to transfer those fees out of his IOLTA. 57. On deposited a his IOLTA, amount of or about United made Financial payable $4,000.00 for 28, October to 2011' Casualty Company Respondent "full and and final Respondent check into B.D., in the payment of all injury claims. " 58. Respondent kept $300.00 of the United Financial Casualty Company settlement as fees and/or costs and failed to transfer those fees out of his IOLTA. 59. On or about November 1, IOLTA check #1945 to B.D. 2011, Respondent issued in the amount of $1,200.00 and indicated "1/2" on the memo line of the check. 60. Respondent still owed B.D. $2,500.00. 61. From November 2, 2011 through November 4, 2011, Respondent ··s IOLTA balance fell below $2, 500. 00; Respondent invaded B.D.'s funds in 5 transactions, from $42.78 to $1,468.63. 11 in amounts ranging 62. On 7, November 2011, Respondent deposited $2,650.00 of his own personal funds into his IOLTA to bring the balance to $3,681.47. 63. On or about November 14, 2011, Respondent issued IOLTA check #1946 to B.D. in the amount of $1,200.00. 64. Respondent still owed B.D. $1,300.00. 65. From November Respondent invaded 14, B.D. 's 2011 through March funds in amounts 28, 2012, ranging from $24.62 to $1,300.00. 66. E. William Respondent and Esquire, Averona, Respondent's wife in a represented personal injury lawsuit. 67. On or about March 29, 2012, Mr. Averona Respondent and Respondent's wife a settlement check, on Mr. Averona's IOLTA, for $139,018.00 sent drawn in settlement of their personal injury matter. 68. On or about March 29, 2012, Respondent deposited the settlement check into his IOLTA instead of a personal account. 69. The settlement money belonging to Respondent and Respondent's wife was not connected to a client and could not be lawfully deposited into Respondent's IOLTA. 70. Respondent commingled those of his clients. 12 Respondent's funds with 71. Respondent admitted that he deposited and maintained his and his wife's personal settlement funds in his IOLTA to shield those personal funds from levy by the IRS, which had previously levied Respondent's personal and operating accounts. 72. On or about April 4, 2012, approximately 5 months after Respondent received the second settlement described in paragraph 57, supra, Respondent check, as issued IOLTA check #2114 to B.D. in the amount of $1,300.00. 73. Respondent failed to make timely distribution of B.D.'s settlement funds. Minor Kim, Client Funds 74. In February of 2012, Respondent represented a minor with the last name of Kim. 75. deposited On two or about American February General 10, Life 2012, Respondent Insurance Company checks into his IOLTA, made payable to Respondent and Minor Kim, one SXXX9160, in the amount of $69,669.00 for Policy and one in the amount of $50, 000.00 No. for Policy No. SXXX6690, totaling $119,669.00. 76. On February 10, 2012, Respondent's IOLTA should have contained $119,669.00 in funds belonging to Minor Kim 13 and $1,300.00 in funds belonging to B.D. for a total of $120,969.00. 77. fell On February 14, below 2012, $120,969.00 Respondent's IOLTA balance to $119,077 .38; therefore, Respondent invaded funds belonging to Minor Kim and B.D. 78. From February 14, 2012 to March 29, 2012, Respondent invaded funds belonging to Minor Kim in amounts ranging from received the $591.62 funds ~67, After $10, 187. 75, from his Respondent injury settlement. from personal until Petitioner, supra) 79. (See to Respondent, on repeated or about requests February 28, 2013, opened an operating account at TD Bank. 80. 79 supra, By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through Respondent has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: a. RPC 1. 3, which states that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; b. RPC 1.15(b), which states that a lawyer shall hold all Rule 1 .15 Funds and property separate Such from property the lawyer's shall appropriately safeguard; 14 be own property. identified and c. RPC 1.15(e), part, which that a states, in pertinent lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property, including Funds, but that not the limited client to or Rule 1.15 third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or render third a person, full shall accounting promptly regarding the property; d. 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 purpose of paying service and only in an charges ·on that amount necessary account, for that purpose; e. RPC 1.15 (j), while a lawyer which states that at all times lawyer holds shall also Rule 1.15 maintain Funds, the another account that is not used to hold such funds; f . RPC 8.4(a), professional violate which states misconduct the Rules of for that a it lawyer Professional is to Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; 15 RPC g. which 8.4(c), professional engage in states misconduct conduct it that for a involving lawyer is to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and h. RPC which 8.4(d), professional states misconduct it that for a lawyer is to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. SPECIFIC JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE Petitioner and Respondent jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline for Respondent's admitted misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years. Respondent imposed upon Attached hereby him to by this consents the to Supreme petition affidavit required by Rule 215, is that Court discipline of Pennsylvania. Respondent's Pa.R.D.E., being executed stating that he consents to the recommended discipline and which includes the mandatory acknowledgements required by Rule 215 (d) (1) through (4), Pa.R.D.E. In Pennsylvania, particular type of there is no per se discipline for a misconduct, but instead each case is reviewed individually as established in the case of Office 16 of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lucarini, The appropriate disciplinary sanction is based 186 (1983) . on the 504 Pa. 271, 472 A.2d nature aggravating and and gravity of mitigating the misconduct, factors and the In re present. Anonymous, No. 85 DB 97, 44 Pa. D.&C.4th 299 (1999). In support of Petitioner's recommendation, it is and respectfully Respondent's submitted joint that the engaging in following mitigating circumstances are present: Respondent a. has misconduct admitted and violating the charged Rules of Professional Conduct; b. Respondent as has cooperated evidenced herein and by his with Petitioner, Respondent's admissions consent to receiving a suspension of three years; Respondent c. has no prior history of discipline; and Respondent is remorseful for his misconduct d. and understands he should be disciplined, as evidenced by his consent to receiving a suspension of three years. There is no per misappropriation cases, Lucarini, se rule for discipline Office of Disciplinary Counsel in v. 504 Pa. at 280, 472 A.2d at 190, and every case 17 has its own The nuances. discipline for knowing misappropriation of client funds has ranged from a month suspension to disbarment. Disciplinary Counsel v. Counsel v. 497 Knepp, (1982) (disbarment). 515 Pa. Kochel, (1987) (three-month suspension) Compare, e.g., 449, three- Office of 529 A.2d 1075 with Office of Disciplinary Pa. 441 A.2d 1197 established that 396' "Precedent has unauthorized dealings with client money requires some form of public discipline due to the breach of trust involved." Office of Disciplinary Counsel DB 2002, D.Bd. Rpt., In re Anonymous No. p. 10 v. John (S.Ct. 124 DB 1997, T. No. Olshock, Order 10/24/03), 47 Pa. D.&C.4th 338 28 citing (1998). In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Marvin F. Galfand, No. 25 DB 2004, D.Bd. Rpt. 10/19/05 (S.Ct. Order 2/7/06), the Disciplinary Board stated that a review of recent case law established that the of range discipline in misappropriation cases is a suspension of not less than one year and one day to disbarment, reinstatement hearing and future which sanctions require a proof of fitness. D.Bd. Rpt. p. 12. Although each of the following precedents could be distinguished from Respondent Ginsberg's matter for one or more reasons, these precedents provide some insight into the appropriate length of suspension. with attorney disciplinary matters, 18 "As is often the case there is no case precedent that is precisely Disciplinary Counsel v. on all c. Anthony fours .... " Office of 616 Pa. 439, Cappuccio, 454, 48 A. 3d 1231, 1240 (Pa. 2012). In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lawrence T. Foti, 89 DB 2001, 69 Pa. D.&C.4th 278 suspended for three misappropriated failing to for years $33,000.00 make (2003), Respondent Foti was prompt in fiduciary distribution knowingly having funds of and $2,700.00 in for an unrelated matter. Foti used the client funds for office- related and expenses disorganization and costs inability that to arose due prioritize to his obligations. Foti suffered from depression and established entitlement to mitigation under Braun, 520 Pa. Foti made 157, Office of 553 A.2d restitution Disciplinary 894 (1989). after Counsel Additionally, commenced ODC v. its investigation, took steps to rearrange his practice and to better it, manage had no prior history of discipline, expressed remorse, and presented evidence of good character and of being a very skilled and competent lawyer. In Olshock, Respondent $22, 093 prior Olshock from history supra, for an estate. of the three Supreme years Court for In mitigation, discipline, made prompt suspended misappropriating Olshock had no restitution in full to the estate prior to ODC' s investigation, presented 19 evidence of good character, and expressed sincere remorse. Olshock to also made changes his office by employing a full-time staff and an accountant, and having at least two employees regularly checking the estate work that needed to be done. In aggravation, District Attorney at the Olshock was a First Assistant time in the county in which he practiced. In Harmon, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gwendolyn N. a/k/a Gwen Norman, 72 Pa. D.&C.4th 115 (2004), the Supreme Court suspended Respondent Harmon for three years for being out of trust, in the aggregate, in the amount of $26,516. 08 over the course of three years. prior history aggravated by of discipline. her Harmon had no Harmon's inattentiveness to discipline the was disciplinary proceedings; inter alia, Harmon resided in Las Vegas at the time of the disciplinary hearing and failed to appear for the hearing but was contacted by telephone during the hearing and permitted to place a statement on the record. In Office Federline, (S. Ct. of Counsel Robert v. Nos. 9 DB 2007 & 92 DB 2008, D.Bd. Order 6/2/10) , suspended Disciplinary for L. Rpt. 3/5/10 Respondent Feder line was temporarily failing to comply with a subpoena for financial records. The Supreme Court subsequently suspended Respondent Federline for three 20 years, retroactive to the effective date misappropriating matters. of a the total temporary of for suspension, $18,309.43 in two client In mitigation, Federline had no prior history of discipline apart the from temporary suspension, and presented evidence of financial difficulties for many years and of depression that made the demands of his law practice debilitating. Federline also reimbursed the Client Security Fund and otherwise made restitution. Respondent, while knowing it was wrong to do, paid for hundreds of personal expenses out of his IOLTA, using it as a personal months. account Respondent for approximately made an one untimely year and distribution nine of settlement funds to a client. He caused many overdrafts in his IOLTA, and deposited his own money into his make his clients, including a minor, whole. Respondent did not have permission to use his client's funds. this he commingled his own funds misappropriated client funds, with IOLTA to client By doing funds and even if the misappropriation was in small amounts and only for a short time. Respondent has no prior history of discipline; expressed remorse; and admitted his wrongdoing, as evidenced by his agreement to enter into a joint petition for discipline on consent. 21 WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent respectfully request that: a. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E., Rule the and three-member Disciplinary Board Joint 215 (e) review 215 (g)' panel the approve and of the Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent and file its recommendation with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in which it is recommended that the Supreme Court enter an Order: 1. suspending Respondent from the practice of law for a period of retroactive to July 22, years, 2013, the date to voluntary transferred Respondent three inactive status; and 2. directing Respondent to comply with all of provisions the of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. b. Pursuant panel of Respondent to Rule the to 215(i), the Disciplinary pay the three-member Board necessary order expenses incurred in the investigation of this matter as a condition to the grant of the Petition and that all expenses be paid by Respondent 22 before the imposition of discipline under Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PAUL J. KILLION, CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ----~) lu B~Y,;~~Q~o ,!§iL~ Attorney Registration No. 87147 1601 Market Street Suite 3320 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2337 BY: pk__ Respon~ _(i Attorney Registration No. 17900 185 Gleneagles Court Blue Bell, PA 19422-3246 23 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 34 DB 2015 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner ODC File No. C2-11-1057 v. Attorney Reg. No. 17900 BARRY PAUL GINSBERG, (Montgomery County) Respondent VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Jolnt Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent under Rule 215(d), Pa. R. D. E. , 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 authorities. Date Respondent falsification to BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 34 DB 2015 ODC File No. C2-11-1057 v. Attorney Reg. No. 17900 BARRY PAUL GINSBERG, Respondent {Montgomery County) VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent under Rule 215{d), Pa.R.D.E., 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 authorities. (:)Jiu(~~a. ~Jtt!A Patricia A. Dugan, Disciplinary Counsel (j to BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 34 DB 2015 ODC File No. C2-11-1057 v. Attorney Reg. No. 17900 BARRY PAUL GINSBERG, Respondent (Montgomery County) AFFIDAVIT Barry Paul support of the Consent Pursuant Ginsberg, Joint 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 aware of the he has implications of submitting the consent; consulted with counsel in connection with the decision to consent to discipline. 2. He proceeding is aware involving that there allegations is that presently he has pending a guilty of forth in been misconduct as set forth in the Joint Petition. 3. He acknowledges that the Joint Petition are true. the material facts set 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 day of Bw,.~~M ' 2015. Attorney Registration No. 17900 Sworn to and subscribed Before me this 16111 day of JviLj ' 2015. JaULMW&UlitCV'J..t r\V111 t-c-v-Notary Public ~U not

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.