77 DB 2020
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
77 FILED 05/27/2020 The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania throughout that case and many others are why he is such a valuable asset to the Defense Bar of Bucks County. He is a skilled, hardworking and upstanding attorney who makes the system run the way it should. I hope to be able to continue trying cases against him because I believe in the system and I think it only works well when talented an ethical people are involved on both sides." It is important to note again, that Ms. Kohler was one of the lead prosecutors in the Kratz case. There are several other well-respected people who have shared their opinions of Respondent. All indicate that this has been a solitary lapse in his character. They describe him as honest, trustworthy, competent, and a zealous advocate in support of his clients. They all make reference to his integrity. Respondent's transgressions were significant in this case. But considering the mitigating factors, apparent aberrational nature of the misconduct, and the lack of aggravation, a public reprimand sufficiently serves to protect the public, preserve the integrity of the courts and deter future unethical conduct. WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent respectfully request that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement 215(e), 215(g) and 2 l 5(i), a three member panel of the Disciplinary Board review and approve the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL THOMAS J. FARRELL, Esquire Attorney Registration No. 20955, Chief Disciplinary Counsel May 26, 2020 DATE HAROLD E. CIAMPOLI, JR., Esquire 13 VERIFICATION The statements contained in the foregoing Joint Petition In Support ofDiscipline on Consent Discipline are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. May 26, 2020 DATE HAROLD E. CIAMPOLI, JR., Esquire Disciplinary Counsel DATE -·i Attorney Registration Respondent I 7 , ') / 7-. ( / .2 <.,,{» DATE' !J.7!2n>JJ , Esquire Attorney Registrati n'}{umber 14950 Attorney for Resporifient, \,_/j BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner V. WILLIAM CRAIG PENGLASE, Respondent No. DB 2020 Attorney Reg. No. 86875 (Bucks 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 §89.22 (relating to service by a participant). Electronic Mail and First Class, as follows: Marc Robert Steinberg, Esquire Rubin Glickman Steinberg et al PO Box 1277 Lansdale, PA19446-0726 Counsel for Respondent May 26, 2020 Dated: ----- HAROLD E. CIAMPOLI, JR, Esquire Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Registration No. 51159 Office of Disciplinary Counsel 820 Adams Avenue, Suite 170 Trooper, PA 19403 (610) 650- 8210 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this filling complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. Submitted by: Harold E. Ciampoli, Jr. Signature: ____________________ Name: Harold E. Ciampoli, Jr. Attorney No. (if applicable): 51159
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.
