Reinstated Former DA Promises Hyper Vigilant Ethics Compliance
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reinstated a former District Attorney who had been suspended for a year and a day.
The Disciplinary Board described the suspension basis
Petitioner’s suspension was based on her actions in two separate matters while she was serving as the duly elected District Attorney of Centre County. RQ, Disciplinary Board Report (12/6/2018).
In the first matter, Petitioner engaged in improper ex parte email and text communications with members of the Centre County judiciary. Id. During ODC’s investigation of the ex parte communications, Petitioner provided false and misleading responses to inquiries. Id.
In the second matter, Petitioner created, disseminated and used a fictitious Facebook page in an attempt to curb criminal activity in Centre County, which conduct was fraudulent and deceptive in violation of the ethical rules and which led to communications with represented parties. Id.
The Board found that during her disciplinary proceedings, Petitioner failed to acknowledge the vast majority of her misconduct, did not accept responsibility and failed to express sincere remorse. RQ, Disciplinary Board Report (12/6/2018), p. 22.
The Board found that Petitioner expressed regret that she had been charged with misconduct which caused her embarrassment, but did not express regret that she caused harm to the legal profession and the public. Id.
She now accepts the misconduct findings
Petitioner admitted that she abused the power of her office as District Attorney of Centre County and expressed contrition. She testified, “As the public prosecutor in charge of enforcing the law, me joking around with a Judge or asking a Judge to move a hearing, you know, I have the ability to enforce the law. I should be upholding it, not doing things that raised questions about, you know, the ethics of my office. I do think that the things that I have done absolutely were an abuse of the power of the position I was given … I impaired the entire system, the confidence in the system… So I now understand the impact of what I did to the profession and also that position. So I get that now.” 12/9/20 N.T. 45-46.
Petitioner testified that she is seeking reinstatement because “I love being a lawyer. I love being in the courtroom … I love getting to know people, meeting people, when they have a problem and sitting down and saying how can I use my skill set to solve it for them. So I can’t even dream of another job that would make me this happy in terms of satisfied. It’s a purpose.” 11/23/20 N.T. 236.
When questioned about how she will follow the Rules of Professional Conduct if she is readmitted, Petitioner testified, “the word that comes to mind is hyper vigilant. Never run afoul of the rules again. Not be walking any lines or do anything questionable, being the attorney that the profession needs me to be, and the attorney that I have been in my life before a certain time period, to get back to that.“ 11/23/20 N.T. 328.
The court accepted the Board’s favorable recommendation. (Mike Frisch)