Short Suspension For Failure To Correct

A 10-day reciprocal suspension has been imposed by the Georgia Supreme Court for a Florida sanction

Regarding the conduct leading to his ten-day suspension, Pettinato has admitted the following facts concerning the two disciplinary matters in Florida, as admitted in the Consent Judgment approved by order of the Florida Supreme Court. In 2015, while Pettinato was co-counsel for a corporation in an insurance dispute, the presiding court imposed guidelines to govern the case’s appraisal process, including disclosure requirements. Those guidelines required each party’s proposed appraiser, “after making a reasonable inquiry,” to “disclose to all parties and any other appraiser any known facts that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect his or her impartiality, including (a) a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the appraisal; and (b) a current or previous relationship with any of the parties (including their counsel or representatives) or with any of the participants in the appraisal proceeding.” Pettinato and his co-counsel requested from managing members of their firm any disclosures that may be required, and none were identified. With Pettinato’s assistance, the appraiser completed a court ordered disclosure, indicating that the appraiser had no significant prior business relationships with Pettinato’s firm that would affect his appraisal. But after the opposing party objected, the court found that the appraiser’s disclosure was insufficient because the appraiser had been involved in prior cases with Pettinato and his firm, Pettinato had appeared in the brochure advertising the appraiser’s services five years earlier, and an attorney in Pettinato’s firm had incorporated and was the registered agent for the appraiser’s company. The court therefore dismissed the matter with prejudice and awarded attorney fees and expenses against Pettinato and his co-counsel individually.

Regarding the other matter, in March 2016, prior to Pettinato’s representation of two policyholders in a lawsuit against their insurer, the policyholders had submitted a proof of loss that was not notarized in their presence when they signed it. In August 2016, Pettinato sued the insurer on behalf of the policyholders, and in November 2017, the policyholders, in opposition to the insurer’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, executed affidavits in which they averred that they had submitted a sworn proof of loss as required by the policy. On December 7, 2017, the evening before the insurer deposed one of the policyholders, Pettinato learned, for the first time, that the sworn proof of loss was not properly notarized. In an attempt to correct the issue, the next day, Pettinato provided opposing counsel with a second proof of loss executed that morning just prior to the deposition. Nonetheless, during the deposition, the policyholder testified that the original proof of loss was notarized in his presence. According to Florida’s Consent Judgment, Pettinato “attempted to clarify the misstatements and inform the parties of the issue with the initial Proof of Loss during the deposition, in his response brief, and in [a] hearing on August 22, 2018, but failed to do so in a timely manner.”

The sanction was imposed nunc pro tunc (Mike Frisch)