A Pennsylvania Hearing Committee found misconduct a proposes a suspension 

This matter arises out of Respondent’s representation of three clients in interrelated proceedings before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (“EHB”). In each of those matters, Respondent sought relief in the form of clean water for clients who claimed that the water source supplying their homes had been contaminated by fracking operations. Respondent had no experience litigating before the EHB and did not avail herself of sufficient resources to competently represent her clients in that forum. When faced with various challenges in the course of the litigation, Respondent doubled down, became combative, and leveled accusations at the other parties and the Judge. While Respondent credibly appears to have believed that she was fighting the “good fight” on behalf of people with limited means in desperate circumstances, she lost sight of her professional responsibilities in the heat of the dispute. Respondent appears to have learned and grown from this experience and has taken active steps to secure appropriate mentorship to practice appropriately moving forward. Due to the number of Rules implicated by Respondent’s Conduct, and the underlying events taken as a whole, the Hearing Committee recommends suspension for a period of one year as appropriate discipline.

Misrepresentation

The Hearing Committee finds that Respondent misrepresented, and perpetuated a misrepresentation, in continuing to assert that the DEP, through Mr. Braymer’s April 2, 2021 email, admitted to TEG usage at the well site at issue. Although Respondent’s initial characterization of this email could be tolerated as erroneous, once Respondent was put on notice of this mischaracterization by the DEP’s Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (ODC-12), Respondent acted in reckless disregard for the truth in continuing to repeat her mischaracterization, without any further investigation and despite being notified of its falsity. The repetition of these statements in her filings in February of 2022 (ODC-48) and May of 2022 (ODC-51) constitute violations of these rules.

Accusations against judge

Although it was reasonable for Respondent to have generalized concerns about the EHB proceedings and DEP activity, Respondent’s allegations against Judge Labuskes as set forth within the Landowners Demand for the Board’s Removal of Judge Labuskes were false, and had no basis in law or fact that is not frivolous.