Hurry Led To Criminal Conduct; Reinstatement Granted

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted reinstatement of an attorney who was disbarred in 2006 as a result of a criminal conviction.

Petitioner’s offense occurred on November 30, 2001, while appearing in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to litigate Traffic Court appeals on behalf of four clients, at which time she signed the name and/or initials of the Assistant District Attorney to a Plea Bargain sheet to lower her clients’ traffic offenses, knowing that she did not have the authority from the Assistant District Attorney to do so.

In so doing, Petitioner was attempting to expedite the summary appeals plea bargain process because she had to attend another hearing that day in another county and was concerned that she would be late.

She was a caregiver for an ill family member and employed as a house cleaner.

Petitioner recognizes that what she did was shameful and deserving of disbarment. In her own words, she described her conduct as reprehensible, intolerable and a foolish mistake. She intensely regrets her actions.

The Disciplinary Board

Petitioner was convicted of four counts of forgery and tampering with public records arising out of a single occurrence and/or series of occurrences on November 30, 2001. On that date, while appearing in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to litigate Traffic Court appeals on behalf of four clients, Petitioner signed the Assistant District Attorney’s name and/or initials on a Plea Bargain sheet in an effort to expedite the plea procedure. Her reason for doing so was that she was due in court in another county later that day and she was concerned with being on time to the subsequent hearing. Her conduct was discovered by the Assistant District Attorney that day, at which point Petitioner acknowledged that she had acted improperly. Petitioner made no subsequent attempt to cover up her misconduct or further deceive the tribunal. There is no evidence that Petitioner’s misconduct went beyond the scope of this one, isolated incident. While Petitioner’s misconduct is very serious and regrettable, the Court has repeatedly declined to find that such misconduct is an act sufficiently egregious to bar reinstatement…

Petitioner’s character witnesses provided reliable and favorable insight into the quality of Petitioner’s character. They described her as an honest and trustworthy individual with a reputation as a caring and hard-working person. They believe she has learned from her experience and that it will make her a better attorney.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not oppose reinstatement. (Mike Frisch)