Civil Sanctions Lead To Reprimand

A consent sanction for a public reprimand has been imposed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The matter involved litigation misconduct committed while the attorney was admitted pro hac vice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Respondent represented defendant Avidas Pharmaceuticals in the case.

The Magistrate Judge conducted numerous teleconferences and found Respondent to be “consistently flippant, overly-aggressive, truculent and quick to confrontation” and had frequently called the matter a “garbage case.”

When the client’s founder was deposed, Respondent “interrupted, lodged frivolous objections, improperly instructed [the witness] not to answer questions and extensively argued with [opposing counsel].”

There were “at least 39 instances where, on improper grounds” Respondent instructed the witness not to answer questions.

The Magistrate Judge ordered Rule 11 sanctions of $28,502.03 against the Respondent personally and ordered a  self-report with documents and video clips of the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Respondent did not self-report as ordered but the court’s clerk notified the ODC.

The joint petition here noted a number of mitigation factors including acceptance of responsibility and an absence of prior discipline. 

[A]t the time she was caught up in her role as an advocate who has fought passionately for the rights of the disadvantaged

The client’s web page states: “Where wellness begins with passion”    (Mike Frisch)