The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board has recommended a year and a day suspension based on findings of misconduct

it is undisputed that on the morning of November 5, 2019, Respondent executed and filed a petition in the civil matter against Ms. Kissinger, requesting that the County Sheriff accompany Respondent to a residence on Deforrest Street, where, according to that filing, Ms. Kissinger was “believed to be held against her will by an individual who is armed.” It is also undisputed that, at the time Respondent filed the November 5 Petition, she did not represent Ms. Kissinger, had no first-hand knowledge of Ms. Kissinger’s situation and, in fact, had never met or spoken with her. Indeed, Mr. Wencker, who (unlike Respondent) represented Ms. Kissinger and had spoken with her, attempted to disabuse Respondent of the notion that Ms. Kissinger was in danger. Yet, despite having no factual basis for making such a serious allegation—and ignoring the assurance of an officer of the Court with a fiduciary duty to protect Ms. Kissinger’s interests—Respondent submitted a written document to the Court, claiming that Ms. Kissinger was believed to be in grave danger.

Competence

Respondent’s handling of the November 5 Petition and her subsequent arguments in connection therewith also lay bare her lack of competence. For instance, as Respondent has repeatedly acknowledged, her only “client” at that time was Ms. McCreary and the Barb’s Besties Facebook Group—neither of whom were parties to the civil action. Thus, before seeking substantive relief in the Kissinger Civil Action, Respondent was required to seek intervention on behalf of her clients, or at a minimum, should have filed her Petition to Intervene simultaneously. Yet, the November 5 Petition makes no mention of the fact that Respondent represented non-parties and was seeking relief on their behalf. Given the rudimentary nature of this legal principle, we find Respondent’s filing demonstrates a lack of basic competence.

Frivolous pleading

in submitting the November 5 Petition, Respondent was not merely representing to the Court what is “believed” to be true in the abstract, but was also certifying that she had conducted a reasonable investigation into the veracity of those allegations that were material to the relief she was seeking and believed them to be based in fact, or likely to be supported by evidence.

An aggravating factor

Time and again, Respondent left no doubt that, in her view, she was the most intelligent and competent person in the room and every person involved in the Kissinger matters (except for her) made mistakes and failed to follow the rules. (8/30/22 N.T. 53-54). As the record demonstrated, despite not being experienced in criminal law and not appearing before Judge Zanic in civil cases on a frequent basis (2/16/22 N.T. 58), Respondent questioned the decisions and actions made by Judge Zanic, Mr. Wencker, Ms. Heaton, Mr. Wilson and others.

…In short, Respondent was eager to question and criticize the actions of others but never reflected on her own actions in the Kissinger matters. This, in our view, is a significant aggravating factor under the circumstances.

Proposed sanction

Respondent filed a frivolous petition containing a false averment, failed to withdraw from Ms. Kissinger’s matters, persisted in filing pleadings to the extent that the court ordered her removed from the matters, and exhibited a lack of understanding of her responsibilities. Respondent made Ms. Kissinger’s matters about herself and failed to grasp that her own actions created chaos and confusion for her client and the court system.

Upon this record, after considering the nature and gravity of Respondent’s misconduct, weighing the significant aggravating factors and the less compelling mitigation, and analyzing the decisional law, we recommend that Respondent be suspended for one year and one day. This suspension is within the range of discipline meted out in similar matters and will protect the public, in keeping with the goals of the disciplinary system, by requiring Respondent to prove her fitness prior to resuming the practice of law.

Pleadings in the case can be accessed here. 

Respondent had filed a civil action in federal district court against several defendants involved in the underlying and ensuing disciplinary matter that was dismissed withour prejudice. (Mike Frisch)