Break Out

Reciprocal discipline has been imposed by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department.

By November 2016 order, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended respondent for one year and one day due to a determination that he had engaged in a series of frivolous and repetitious lawsuits within that state in violation of three separate provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had the story of the discipline imposed in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has suspended a Pittsburgh lawyer after he brought seven separate pro se actions, or actions on behalf of himself, all regarding similar claims against 34 defendants over allegations people broke into his office and stole files.

Attorney Paul J. McArdle has been suspended for one year and one day, according to a Nov. 22 order, based on the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board’s report and recommendations, filed in September. In the actions Mr. McArdle filed, he alleged that various defendants defamed him, then entered his law office to remove files regarding the alleged defamation.

According to the disciplinary board’s opinion, Mr. McArdle, who has an office on Smithfield Street, Downtown, filed his first action in 2010, pro se, with a petition for pre-complaint discovery related to his allegation of theft and breach of security at his law office. The petition asked for subpoenas of 18 people. Mr. McArdle deposed five of the 18, and the others filed motions to quash or for protective orders.

Mr. McArdle then filed a complaint in March 2011, naming 30 defendants. He alleged that in 2010, files were taken from his law office on two occasions. He asserted causes of action for defamation, trespass and conversion.

But in July 2011, Allegheny County Common Pleas Court dismissed his complaint. Mr. McArdle appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the dismissal.

He filed another complaint in Common Pleas Court in February 2012. The court dismissed that complaint as well, the opinion said, noting that the only difference from the first complaint was the addition of new allegations referring to other break-ins. Again, Mr. McArdle appealed.

This continued, with another pro se petition for pre-complaint discovery in April 2012, followed by another complaint in May 2012. In July 2012, he filed another pre-complaint discovery petition. He then petitioned for a rule to show cause when two individuals failed to appear for a deposition, but the court denied that petition as well.

Again, the only difference in the new complaints was the addition of more trespassing allegations, the disciplinary board said.

Mr. McArdle filed a sixth action, a pro se complaint in federal court, in December 2012. The allegations were similar to the previous complaints, but he added four more individuals as defendants and two more unnamed defendants. The case was dismissed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Finally, in December 2014, Mr. McArdle filed a seventh action, a pro se complaint in the Allegheny County court. The court dismissed that complaint, noting that people in a “‘civil society'” should eventually “‘get past the defeat and move on to other endeavors,'” according to the disciplinary board.

“‘It is evident that the judges of this court have been exceedingly patient with plaintiff in the face of years of disregard for the rules that keep courts functioning,'” the court said, according to the board’s opinion. “‘At this point his disregard has become so disruptive that it must no longer be accepted with the excess of patience our court has exhibited for years.'”

The board concluded that Mr. McArdle violated three Rules of Professional Conduct. The board said he brought a frivolous proceeding; used means to embarrass, delay or burden a person; and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

“It is respondent’s disdain for the judicial system that is so troubling in this matter, particularly in light of his unblemished prior record of discipline,” the board said. “Respondent’s conduct indicates that his persistent refusal to accept adverse court rulings stems from this disdain, and not from a good-faith interpretation of the court decisions.”

Mr. McArdle, a solo practitioner, said in an interview that he is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said he was denied due process in the disciplinary matter.

(Mike Frisch)