No. 2712 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. JOHN LOUIS KLEBER, III, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 2712 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 3 DB 2020 Attorney Registration No. 85846 (Philadelphia) ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2020, 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, and John Louis Kleber, III, is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day. Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(g). A True Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 04/02/2020 Attest: ___________________ Chief Clerk Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner : : No. 3 DB 2020 v. : JOHN LOUIS KLEBER, Attorney Registration No. 85846 III Respondent : (Philadelphia) RECOMMENDATION OF THREE -MEMBER PANEL OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Three -Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, consisting of Board Members John P. Goodrich, Dion G. Rassias, and Robert L. Repard, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above -captioned matter on March 4, 2020. The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a suspension for a period of one year and one day, and recommends to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that the attached Petition be Granted. The Panel further recommends that any necessary expenses incurred in investigation and prosecution of this matter shall be paid by the respondent -attorney. PAftysika_ipu, Goodrich, Panel Chair The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Jo Date: ailio,04(:) P. the BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 3 DB 2020 Attorney Reg. No. v. JOHN LOUIS KLEBER, 85846 III Respondent (Philadelphia) : JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.D.E. 215(d) Petitioner, the Office of by Thomas J. "ODC") Farrell, Disciplinary Gilson, Disciplinary Counsel Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and Mark Counsel (hereinafter "Respondent"), (hereinafter, and John Louis Kleber, III, respectfully petition Lhe Disciplinary Board in support of discipline on consent, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary EnforcemenL ("Pa.R.D.E.") 215(d), and in support thereof state: Petitioner, whose principal office is situated at Office 1. of Chief 2700, Disciplinary Counsel, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Suite 601 Commonwealth Pennsylvania 17106, is Avenue, to misconduct attorney Commonwealth of an Box 62485, Harrisburg, invested, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. the power and duty of P.O. investigate all matters Pennsylvania admitted and to to with involving alleged practice prosecute 207, all law in the disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions of the aforesaid Enforcement Rules. FILED 03/04/2020 The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Respondent 2. was admitted to practice October 23, Avenue, September on law in the PA 19114. address By Order dated September 17, Pennsylvania the was Frankford 9231 is Respondent's address is 609 Crescent Street, Langhorne, 2018, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on registration Philadelphia, 4. 1970, 18, 2000. Respondent's 3. born current mailing PA 19047. effective October 2018, Supreme Court administratively 17, suspended Respondent for failing to pay his annual attorney registration fee. 5. Respondent remains administratively suspended. 6. Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED I. The Berger Estate (ODC No. C1-19-740) On August 7. 28, 2015, Philadelphia intestate and without On or about 8. Leonard R. Respondent Pryor, for father's estate 9. September and Berger died in will. 2015, Ms. opening in Eugene Mr. Tyra and Berger's Moore, son, Mr. consulted administrating their Pryor and Ms. Moore ("the Berger Estate"). On or about November retained Respondent, signed pay him either a 16, daughter, assistance Henry Mr. a a 2015, Mr. written fee agreement, "a commission of gross estate," or 6, and agreed to roughly five percent minimum commission of $4,000. 2 (5%) of the 10. Under terms the of the fee agreement, expressly agreed to: probate the estate; file Register of Wills; advertise the estate; a Respondent petition with the appraise collect, and disburse estate assets; pay estate expenses; file an inheritance tax return; prepare an informal accounting for the reimburse Mr. Pryor for "initial attorney's fees if I heirs; and am appointed administrator." Pryor paid Respondent's $4,000 fee in full. 11. Mr. 12. Respondent failed to open an estate with the Philadelphia Register of Wills Office ("Register's Office") for nearly two years from the date he was initially retained. 13. for Grant On or about October 27, 2017, of Letters with Respondent filed Register's the Office and a Petition obtained Letters of Administration authorizing him to act as the personal representative for the Berger Estate. 14. Thereafter, Respondent failed to: advertise the estate; notify the beneficiaries; file an inheritance tax return; pay the inheritance tax; prepare an informal accounting for the heirs; an inventory of file estate assets or status of estate administration with the Register's Office; and complete the administration of the Berger Estate. 15. Respondent's failure to timely pay the estate inheritance tax caused the Berger Estate to forfeit an entitlement to claim 3 a pre -payment discount of 5% on the tax due, and will require payment of additional interest charges upon the filing of the tax return. dated letter By 16. September Respondent and mailed to his home address, Langhorne, 19047, Pa Mr. addressed 2019, 24, to 609 Crescent Street, Pryor requested information regarding the status of Respondent's administration of the Berger Estate, and a detailed accounting for the work performed and attorney's fees. 17. Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Pryor's request for information or provide an accounting. II. 18. On The Wojciechowski Estate (ODC No. March 2014, 30, Philadelphia intestate and without On May Peter Mr. a C1-19-844) Wojciechowski Mr. Wojciechowski's Wojciechowski, and daughter, Ms. Dana Wojciechowski 14, collectively referred to as "the clients"), assist them in administering Wojciechowski Estate"), signed a in will. 2014, 19. died their son, Mr. Peter (hereinafter, retained Respondent to father's estate ("the written fee agreement, and agreed to pay Respondent a fee of $2,600. 20. On October 10, 2014, Respondent filed a Petition for Grant of Letters with the Register's Office and obtained Letters of Administration authorizing him to act representative for the Wojciechowski Estate. 4 as the personal Respondent did not file the inheritance tax return or pay 21. the inheritance tax for the Wojciechowski Estate until October 19, 2018, over 53 months after the date he was retained. Respondent's failure to timely pay the inheritance tax 22. caused the Wojciechowski Estate to forfeit an entitlement to claim a pre -payment discount of 5% on the tax due, and pay interest in the amount of $403. In the inheritance tax return, Respondent identified two 23. separate payments to himself Representative Commission"; and of: 1) $2,599 for $5,700 for "Attorney's Fees." 2) Respondent charged, collected and paid himself 24. "Personal a total of $8,299 in fees from the assets of the Wojciechowski Estate. 25. The $8,299 in total fees Respondent charged, collected and paid himself was more than the $2,600 fee Respondent agreed to charge the clients in the fee agreement. The 26. total fee Respondent charged, himself was taken without the knowledge, collected and agreement, paid authorization, consent or approval of the clients. During 27. the Estate, Respondent enforce a course administering of the Wojciechowski filed and successfully litigated 2009 court order awarding from his ex-wife in settlement of 5 a a motion to $32,000 to Mr. Wojciechowski divorce action. Respondent maintains the additional fees he charged the 28. clients related were to litigation required recover to estate assets, and are reasonable. By 29. March emails dated December 2019, 12, sent johnkleeber2003@yahoo.com, and December 5 Respondent's to 7, email 2018, and address, the clients requested Respondent provide an explanation and accounting for the fees he charged and collected from the Wojciechowski Estate. 30. Respondent failed to provide an explanation, invoice, billing statement, or accounting for the fees he charged, collected and paid himself. 31. On February a. 12, opened a Wojciechowski xxxxxx-307-5 b. 2015, Respondent: business Estate with checking account Citizens Bank, for account the no. ("estate checking account"); and deposited $24,344.93 in estate funds into the account. It was 32. Citizens Bank's policy to charge a monthly account maintenance fee of $9.99 if the average daily balance in the estate checking account fell below $2,000 for statement period. After distributing the bulk of the Wojciechowski Estate 33. assets a to the beneficiaries, Respondent failed to maintain an average daily balance of $2,000 in the estate checking account for 6 at least 23 separate statement periods causing the Wojciechowski Estate to incur and pay over $230 in account maintenance fees. By email 34. Ms. dated December Wojciechowski's identified a email, 1, 2018, sent by Respondent to dwojciechowski@holts.com, Respondent "Balance for Distribution" of $115 remaining in the estate checking account, and promised to distribute the remaining funds to the clients. Respondent 35. failed make to final distribution the of remaining funds in the estate checking account to the clients, and instead, allowed the funds to become fully depleted by the bank's monthly maintenance fee charges. 36. Respondent neglected his fiduciary duty to preserve and protect the Wojciechowski Estate assets. The O'Connell Estate III. 37. On March Philadelphia with 38. 27, a The Last 1977, Mr. (ODC No. John C1-19-1045) O'Connell D. died in last will and testament. Will and Testament of John D. O'Connell ("the O'Connell Will": a. bequeathed his house located at 2306 Amber Street, Philadelphia, PA 19125 youngest children, Mr. equal shares reached age to 18, be ("the Amber Street house") Daniel and Ms. used as their home to his two Cynthia O'Connell, until Ms. in O'Connell at which time "disposition of the house shall be in accordance with the wishes of Daniel and Cindy"; and 7 appointed his daughter, b. as executrix for his estate Shortly after 39. John Poserina, J. her Esquire, Linda Conway, Ms. to serve ("the O'Connell Estate"). father's death, to assist her Ms. Conway retained administering in the O'Connell Estate. 40. December On or about O'Connell's Will and a 1977, 2, Petition Poserina submitted the Mr. Probate for and Letters Testamentary to the Register's Office. 41. accepted On or about December probate for by the 1977, 8, Register's the O'Connell Will Office, and was Letters Testamentary were issued to Ms. Conway. On 42. O'Connell or about (hereinafter Respondent to assist Ms. father's estate, house, September referred 14, to 2015, as "the Conway Ms. and Ms. retained clients") O'Connell in obtaining her share of her consisting of her interest in the Amber Street as provided for in the O'Connell will. 43. Respondent charged the clients 44. Respondent failed to provide the clients Respondent instructed a retainer of $1,000. a written fee agreement. 45. providing him with wife, Ms. 46. on her a Ms. Conway to pay his fee by check for $1,000 made payable to Respondent's Patricia Kleber. Ms. Conway provided Respondent with check no. 231, account with Mauch Chunk Trust Company in 8 the drawn amount of $1,000, made payable to "Patricia Kleber," as payment for Respondent's attorney's fee. Respondent 47. failed obtain to Conway's Ms. informed confirmed in writing, to deposit her funds into an account consent, that was not a trust account. 48. Between February 25, and November 2016, 4, 2019, Ms. Conway made repeated, multiple attempts to contact Respondent by telephone and email requesting information regarding the status of her legal matter. Respondent failed to respond to many, if not most, of Ms. 49. Conway's requests for information. In or 50. estate with about June 2019, the Register's Respondent attempted to open an Office and have himself appointed administrator for the O'Connell Estate. 51. Respondent When she retained Respondent in 2015, a Ms. copy of the O'Connell Will and informed him that Mr. Poserina submitted her father's will for probate, and obtained Conway provided Letters Testamentary for Ms. opened an estate, Conway from the Register's Office in 1977. 52. Respondent failed exercise to reasonably necessary thoroughness, preparation, diligence or competence to represent his clients in this matter. 53. By letter dated January 6, 2020, addressed to Respondent and sent to his home address as noted above, Ms. 9 Conway discharged Respondent and requested that he return all documents she provided him and refund the $1,000 she paid him in attorney's fees. Respondent failed to respond, 54. return any documents, or issue a refund to Ms. Conway. 2018, IV. Respondent's failure to comply with Pa.R.D.E. 217 and unauthorized practice of law 55. By Order dated September 17, Pennsylvania the Supreme 2018, & 219 effective October 17, Court administratively suspended Respondent for failing to file the 2018-2019 PA ATTORNEY'S ANNUAL FEE FORM ("fee form") By 56. and pay the annual fee. letter dated September Attorney Registrar for Disciplinary Board, Attorney the served 17, Suzanne 2018, E. Registration Office of Respondent with copy a of administrative suspension Order and informed Respondent obligation Compliance Pa.R.D.E. to file a Statement of Price, of required as the the his by 217(e) (1). 57. Respondent failed to file a Statement of Compliance. 58. Following the date of the suspension Order, the period of his administrative suspension, and during Respondent repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, to wit: a. On October 11, 2018, Respondent initiated new litigation related to his administration of the Berger Estate by filing and litigating an action to quiet title Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas under caption: 10 in the Estate of Henry Berger by Administrator John Investment Management, LLC, case no. On December 11, b. 2018, Kleber, Esq. L. v. Greene 181001430; Respondent filed and litigated another action to quiet title in the Berger Estate matter by filing a complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas under caption:Estate of Henry Berger by Administrator John Kleber, Esq. 181201107; c. Montgomery v. Street Realty, 2018, Respondent case LLC, L. no. and October On 19, filed the inheritance tax return for the Wojciechowski Estate with the Register's Office, and identified himself on the tax return as "John L. Kleber, Esq., Admin. Of Estate," and provided his law firm's address. During 59. the period of his administrative suspension, Respondent continued to engage with his clients and third parties as counsel representing the Berger, Wojciechowski and O'Connell Estates. 60. opposing Respondent counsel, failed third notify to parties, and or inform his the clients courts, of his administrative suspension status. 61. On his fee form, Respondent listed his office and mailing address as 9231 Frankford Avenue, Philadelphia PA 19114. 62. At some point in 2018, Respondent closed his law office and failed to notify the Attorney Registration Office of the change 11 in information previously provided on his fee form as required by Pa.R.D.E. 219(d)(3). 63. Respondent failed notify to his clients that he had closed his law office, and continued to use stationery identifying his office address in correspondence; to wit, L. Kleber, 9231 Frankford Avenue, "Law Office of John Philadelphia PA 19114" was the letterhead used on correspondence dated February to Mr. 4, 2020, addressed Pryor and provided by Respondent. V. Respondent's failure to respond to ODC's DB-7 Request for Statement of Respondent's Position Letters and Petition for Discipline The Berger Estate A. 64. mail, On September 26, 2019, return receipt Respondent's C1-19-740) ODC sent Respondent, requested, Position Letter (ODC No. Request DB-7 a ("DB-7 letter") for in via certified Statement of regards to ODC complaint no. C1-19-740 to Respondent's home address. 65. On October 23, 2019, the DB-7 by the United States Postal Service 66. On September 27, 2019, letter was returned to ODC marked "unclaimed." ("USPS") ODC emailed letter to Respondent's email as noted above, a copy of the DB-7 and received internal confirmation of email delivery. 67. On October 28, via regular mail 68. to 2019, ODC mailed a copy of the DB-7 letter Respondent's home address. Respondent received the DB-7 letter. 12 Respondent failed to provide 69. D.Bd. Rule § 87.2(b)(2). The Wojciechowski Estate (ODC No. C1-19-844) B. On October 29, 70. mail, response as required by a 2019, return receipt requested, regards ODC to complaint no. ODC sent Respondent, and regular mail C1-19-844 a via certified DB-7 letter in Respondent's to home address. On December 71. 2019, 2, the DB-7 letter sent via certified mail was returned to ODC by USPS marked "unclaimed." December On 72. 2019, 3, ODC emailed copy of a the DB-7 letter to Respondent's email address. By email dated 73. December 7, 2019, Respondent replied to ODC's email and requested an additional period of time to respond to the DB-7 letter. By 74. Respondent email and dated granted him December an ODC 2019, 9, additional 10 days replied to to provide a response to the DB-7 letter. 75. D.Bd. Respondent failed to provide response as required by Rule § 87.2(b)(2). C. 76. mail, a The O'Connell Estate On January 10, 2020, (ODC No. C1-19-1045) ODC sent Respondent via certified return receipt requested, and regular mail regards to ODC complaint no. 01-19-1045 address. 13 to a DB-7 letter in Respondent's home 77. On January 14, 2020, received from USPS ODC a green, return receipt card signed by Respondent confirming delivery of the DB-7. 78. D.Bd. Respondent failed to provide response as required by a Rule § 87.2(b)(2). Petition for Discipline D. 79. On January 6, 2020, ODC filed Petition for Discipline a with The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 80. On personally January served 13, ODC 2020, Respondent with Investigator copy a of the Ted A. Bugda Petition for Discipline. 81. Pa.R.D.E. Respondent failed to file Answer an required as by 208(b)(3). VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT 82. By his conduct as set forth in paragraphs 7 through 81, Respondent violated the following Rules: a. RPC 1.1, competent which states that representation representation a to lawyer shall provide a client. Competent requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation for the representation; 14 reasonably necessary b. RPC 1.3, which states that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a c. client; RPC 1.4(a)(1), promptly states that the client of inform circumstance informed which with respect consent, as a defined by shall decision any which to lawyer the Rule or client's 1.0(e), is required by these Rules; d. RPC 1.4(a)(3), the which states that a lawyer shall keep client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; e. RPC 1.4(a)(4), which requires a lawyer to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the client; f. which states RPC 1.5(b), that when the not regularly represented the client, rate of the legal client, in lawyer has the basis or fee shall be communicated to writing, before or within a the reasonable time after commencing representation; g. RPC 1.15(b), which states, lawyer shall in pertinent part, that a hold and appropriately safeguard all Rule 1.15 Funds; h. RPC 1.15(e), except as which states, in pertinent part, stated 15 in this Rule or that otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a promptly deliver to lawyer shall the client or third person any property, including but not limited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client or third person is request by promptly client the render entitled to receive and, full a or third person, accounting upon shall regarding the property; i. RPC 1.15(i), deposit which into states Trust a that lawyer a Account legal shall fees and expenses that have not been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred, unless the client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, fees and expenses in . a to the handling of different manner; RPC 1.16(a)(2), which states that a lawyer shall not represent a commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if client the or, where lawyer's representation physical or has mental condition materially impairs the lawyers ability to represent the client; k. RPC 1.16(d), which states, in pertinent upon termination of representation, take steps necessary 16 to the a extent part, that lawyer shall reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred; 1. RPC which 5.5(a), practice law in regulation states that lawyer shall not jurisdiction in violation of the a of a the legal profession in that jurisdiction; m. RPC 5.5(b)(2), which states that a lawyer who is not permitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer admitted is practice to law in this jurisdiction; n. RPC which states 8.4(c), misconduct for involving that lawyer a to dishonesty, it is engage professional conduct in deceit fraud, or misrepresentation; o. RPC which 8.4(d), misconduct for states that it is professional lawyer to engage in conduct that a is prejudicial to the administration of justice; p. Pa.R.D.E. (c) (3) ; 217(a); 217 (d) (1) collectively attorney" is , state 217(b); (d) (2) that required 17 to 217(c)(1), and ; a 217 (e) (1) "formerly promptly (c) (2), which admitted notify all clients, heirs, counsel beneficiaries, and other persons professional contacts courts, opposing with whom he may have their of administrative suspension status; disengage from the practice of refrain law; from engaging attorney an as for another in any new case or legal matter; cease and desist from using all expressly forms impliedly or practice law; and file of communication that convey eligibility with the Secretary of to the Board a verified statement of compliance with all of enumerated requirements of Rule 217 within the 10 days of the administrative suspension; q. Pa.R.D.E. part, which requires, 219(d)(3), every attorney who has filed in pertinent a fee form to notify the Attorney Registration Office in writing of any change in information previously submitted within 30 days after such change; r. Pa.R.D.E. by a 203(b)(7), which states that the failure respondent -attorney without good cause shown to respond to Respondent's 87.7(b) a DB-7 Position Request under for Statement Disciplinary shall be grounds for discipline. 18 Rule of § JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE OF A ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY SUSPENSION Petitioner and Respondent jointly appropriate discipline for Respondent is and one day. recommend that the suspension of one year a Respondent asserts that he suffers from alcoholism, morbid obesity causing him various health and physical problems, and other undiagnosed mental and emotional issues that impacted his ability to practice law. Although he has not produced an expert report or evidence meeting the standard of Braun mitigation, ODC has confirmed Respondent's representations through other sources.' Respondent's alcoholism, other personal issues and fitness to practice can be fully explored by another hearing committee in the event Respondent files a petition reinstatement for from a suspension of one year and one day. Respondent consents to the discipline being imposed upon him by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Attached to this Petition as Exhibit A is Respondent's executed Affidavit required by Pa.R.D.E. 215(d)(1) through (4). In support the of Joint Petition, the parties respectfully submit the following mitigating circumstances are present: a) Respondent acknowledges, responsibility his for admits, and wrongdoing accepts and is remorseful; 1 See Office of Disciplinary Counsel 894 (1989). 19 v. Braun, 520 PA. 157, 553 A2d During b) the relevant time period, Respondent suffered from alcoholism, poor health, and mental, emotional and personal issues; and Respondent has no history of discipline. c) The parties recommendation believe, for consistent with the and therefore suspension a of one range of sanctions aver, year that and one their day is imposed in similar cases involving the unauthorized practice of law while on administrative suspension status; lack of diligence, competence and communication in the representation of clients; and failure to respond to ODC's inquiries or cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. Disciplinary case law in similar matters shows that attorneys who engage in the unauthorized practice of law generally receive a suspension of at least one year and one day. The Supreme Court has considered several inactive status, instances lawyers of and has established a practicing line of cases that the appropriate sanction for such conduct is one year and one Goldin-Didinsky, 12/13/04)(respondent DB 2003, D.Bd. suspended for Rpt. one 8/27/04 year and on indicating suspension for Office of Disciplinary Counsel day. 87 a while v. (S.Ct. one Sharon Order day for engaging in unauthorized practice of law while on inactive status) Office of Disciplinary Counsel 2003, day D.Bd. Rpt. suspension 12/30/04 for v. ; Harry Curtis Forrest, Jr., 134 DB (S.Ct. respondent's 20 Order 3/24/05) (one year and one unauthorized practice while on inactive Davis, status); Office of Disciplinary Counsel 71 DB 2005, D.Bd. Rpt. 5/11/06 (S.Ct. Nathaniel M. v. Order 8/22/06)(one year and one day suspension for respondent's unauthorized practice while on inactive status); Accord Office of Disciplinary Counsel Joel p. H. Cavadel, 176 DB 2006 and (S.Ct. Order 15 practice of law, handed down, without a DB 2007, 5 D.Bd. Rpt. v. 8/30/07 at 3/12/08)("In numerous cases of the unauthorized suspension of one a year and one day has been reflecting the Court's position that practicing law license is serious act a of professional misconduct." (citing cases)). Likewise, diligence, cooperate attorneys and in disciplinary neglect who in multiple disciplinary consequences. Michael Elias Stosic, 65 demonstrate incompetence, client matters, investigations Office DB 2015, of D.Bd. often or face Disciplinary Rpt. 6/23/16 lack of fail to serious Counsel (S.Ct. v. Order 9/14/16)(respondent suspended for one year and one day for failing to provide competent representation and communicate matters); Office of Disciplinary Counsel 2017 for (S.Ct. v. in five client Kevin Mark Wray, 19 DB Order 7/6/17)(Supreme Court accepted the joint petition respondent's one year and one day suspension on consent for failing to provide competent representation and communicate in six client matters); Macintyre, 104 Office DB 2018 of (S.Ct. Disciplinary Counsel v. Robert B. Order 11/2/18)(Supreme Court granted 21 joint consent petition for respondent's one year and one day the suspension for failing to communicate and act with diligence in two client matters; and failing to respond to Disciplinary Counsel 1/5/18)(Supreme Order Michael v. Court Halcovage, P. accepted Office of DB-7 letter); a DB 2017 93 petition joint the (S.Ct. for respondent's one year and one day suspension on consent for neglect of client matter; a and failure Office of Disciplinary Counsel respond to ODC's inquiries); to Michael v. Viscuso, 108 DB 2016 J. Order 4/27/17)(Supreme Court granted joint consent petition (S.Ct. for respondent's one satisfy a year and one day suspension for failing to client's settlement obligation; failing to communicate; and failing to respond to DB-7 letter); Counsel Perry v. Lynn Flaugh, and Office of Disciplinary 112 2015 DB Rpt. Bd. (D. 6/15/16)(S.Ct. Order 8/12/16)(respondent suspended one year and one day for lack of diligence and communication in representing client over a period of eight years; abandonment of client; mishandling of client's funds; and misrepresentation to ODC). A suspension of one prove fitness his at practice of protects the public, and should law, deter a year and one day requires Respondent reinstatement addresses the hearing to seriousness of return the to to the misconduct, meets the goals of the disciplinary system, Respondent from the commission of future misconduct. WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent 22 respectfully request, rs, tar eview',-and !approve this Joint Petition in SupPort la04,44n0; and ile a recommendation for a suspension of one year and one day and this Petition with the SUpreme Court of Pennsylvania. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OP DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Thomas J. Farrell Chief Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Reg. No. 48976 By: Date Mark Gilson, Esquire Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Reg. No. 46400 District I Office 1601 Market Street, Suite 3320 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 560-6296 B Louis Kleber Res ondent Attorney Reg. No. 85846 JOhn, 23 EXHIBIT A BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. DB 2020 3 Attorney Reg. No. 85846 v. JOHN LOUIS KLEBER, III Respondent (Philadelphia) RESPONDENT'S AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT I, matter, John Louis Kleber, III, Respondent in the above -captioned hereby consent to the imposition of a suspension of one year and one day, as jointly recommended by the Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and myself, of Discipline on Consent, 1. being in a Joint Petition in Support and further state: My consent is freely and voluntarily rendered; subjected to coercion or duress; I am fully I am not aware of the implications of submitting the consent; 2. I am aware allegations that there is presently an investigation into have been guilty of misconduct as set forth in I the Joint Petition; 3. Joint I acknowledge that the material facts set forth in the Petition are true; 4. I consent because were prosecuted I I know that if the charges against me could not successfully defend against them; and 00: course in co thin Joint Petition. John aids Xleber, Ti! Resp ndent Att rney Reg. No, 65846 to and Subscribed before me this 460'*' day , vioron;,,..;,........., of ./"7-)-77,---e, Sworn , t,0TARIILSE4L 1 VANESSA A. GULICK,NotellyPuttk Pendel Dom., Bodo roft4 MyettrAttslontWeSAMXY 6) NOtary Public Scanned by Vitae m knowledge information anc Arelnade subject to the penalties of 18 pa.O.s. 54004, 14*ing tO uhsworn falsification to authorities. Date ark Gilson, Esquire Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Reg. No. 46400 District I Office 1601 Market Street, Suite 3320 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 560-6296 Oacv John ouis Kleber, III Res 3ndent Att rney Rog. No. 85846 ***6,,A, 4.0004*t4T Scanned by TapScanner BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 3 DB 2020 Attorney Reg. No. 85846 v. JOHN LOUIS KLEBER, III Respondent (Philadelphia) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this day of , 2020, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three -Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board Petition in Support of dated 2020, Consent Discipline on is the Joint hereby granted pursuant to Rule 215(g), and it is ORDERED that John Louis Kleber, from the Bar of this Commonwealth for day, III, a is suspended on consent period of one year and one and he shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner No. 3 DB 2020 Attorney Reg. No. 85846 v. JOHN LOUIS KLEBER, III Respondent (Philadelphia) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving foregoing the documents upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfied the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 121 as follows: Service by First -Class Mail John Louis Kleber, III 609 Crescent Street Langhorne, PA 19047 Date Mark Gilson, Esquire Disciplinary Counsel Attorney Reg. No. 46400 District I Office 1601 Market Street, Suite 3320 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 560-6296 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this filing 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: Offi e of Disciplinary Counsel Signature: Name: Mark F. Gilson, Disciplinary Counsel Attorney No.: 46400

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.