High (Or Low) Lights Of The Pennsylvania Bar Discipline Past Year

The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board has published a summary of the highlights from 2024

Each January, we review the disciplinary decisions from the previous year and identify a list of the cases of greatest interest. We look for cases that involve unusual or remarkable fact situations, that involve interpretation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the rules and procedures governing disciplinary proceedings, and cases examining issues arising from technology or emerging patterns in the practice of law. In alphabetical order, the following ten cases caught our eye in 2024:

• Michael Adler, among other matters, pursued a case against a pet food company in which he repeatedly misstated the chemistry of the products at issue in social media posts, accusing the company of producing unsafe products and of stonewalling him, when he did not understand the chemistry explained to him by counsel for the company. He also copied an email to members of the board of directors of the company without the knowledge or permission of the company’s counsel. This was found to violate RPC 4.1(a) (false statements to a third party) and 4.2 (communicating with a party represented by another lawyer). For this and misconduct in four other cases, he was suspended for one year and one day.
• Leslie Childers-Potts agreed to a suspension for two years based on her conduct while serving as a county District Attorney. She failed to diligently prosecute cases and to take other actions necessary to discharge her duties in four cases, three of which resulted in court orders dismissing proceedings due to the failure of the District Attorney’s office to diligently proceed with the cases or file required documents. At times, she was the only attorney in the District Attorney’s office.
• Robert Clewell admitted to an extensive pattern of misconduct including neglect, misrepresentation of the status of cases, and failure to earn or refund fees. He asserted that his misconduct was “contextualized” by a pattern of depression and anxiety that prevented him from taking necessary actions. The Board engaged in an extensive discussion of mental health issues and whether these factors are mitigating under the terms of prior cases involving mental disability defenses. Although Clewell did not offer psychiatric testimony to meet the standard of mitigation defined in those cases, the Board considered his testimony as to the mental health issues he experienced as context for understanding his pattern of misconduct. He was suspended for two years.
• J. Conor Corcoran was retained by an imprisoned client to represent him in a police brutality case. When the client’s son was killed by a police officer, Corcoran filed a lawsuit naming the client individually and as administrator of his son’s estate as plaintiffs although he had not spoken to or been retained by the client regarding that issue and no estate had been opened. He also failed to name the son’s mother who was represented by other counsel. Even after the client refused to sign a fee agreement and retained other counsel, he continued to attempt to represent the client and filed a petition seeking to have the client declared incapacitated, in which he revealed confidential client information. He then filed a lawsuit claiming to be administrator of the client’s estate on the basis of the client’s incapacity, along with other misrepresentations. He filed other documents which had no merit and contained misrepresentations and threatened to sue the client’s retained counsel for tortious interference. He admitted that his actions were motivated by the desire to obtain a large contingent fee from the representation. He agreed to a suspension for eighteen months.
• Emeka Igwe was found to have charged a clearly excessive fee. He asserted a claim for both a flat fee of $40,000 for services to obtain the proceeds of a child’s special needs trust, which was awarded to the client without any efforts on his part, and a 40% contingent fee for a suit against the child’s father should he assert a claim to the trust which the father did not. Igwe received a public reprimand.
• Stephen Ostroff rented a property to a pizza business that fell behind on rent. He terminated the lease and took possession. The business owner reached an agreement to sell the assets of the business and retained Ostroff to draft the sales agreement. Ostroff prepared a document naming himself as the seller. He received and kept the proceeds of the sale. When the owner sued to obtain the proceeds, he asserted a counterclaim that was not meritorious and subsequently filed the same claim in another court. He stipulated that this conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct related to conflicts of interest, handling of client funds, and conduct involving dishonesty and prejudicial to the administration of justice. He agreed to a suspension for one year which will not require him to file a petition for reinstatement.
• Nathaniel Strasser appeared at a preliminary hearing on behalf of a client at which a police officer skilled in drug detection noticed signs of cocaine use in his appearance and behavior. After being confronted about this, he tested positive for cocaine. At his disciplinary hearing in which he represented himself, he denied being addicted, and in his cross-examination of the trooper who recognized his symptoms, he suggested cocaine use “increases your awareness” and stated, “My mental awareness was at a heightened state, not a lower state.” After the hearing, he retained counsel who filed a motion seeking to reopen the hearing to provide evidence of addiction and treatment, but the motion was denied. He was suspended for one year and one day.
• Robert Tuerk sought reinstatement from disbarment. The Disciplinary Board conducted a searching examination of the issue of his rehabilitation. It found that he “leaves a trail of tribunals over many years who have found that he mischaracterizes his discipline, fails to accept responsibility, and is not credible.” It found that, far from accepting responsibility for his past misconduct, he would often “soft pedal” and minimize it. For this and other reasons, reinstatement was denied.
• William J. Weiss was suspended for a year and a day on consent. After the effective date of his suspension, he engaged in prohibited law-related activities when he appeared at three court conferences, one of which he was introduced by another attorney representing the client as his assistant. For this conduct, and due to substantial aggravating circumstances, he was suspended for five years.
• Andrew Ziegler agreed to a suspension for one year and one day after admitting that he represented clients on the side in violation of the terms of his employment by a law firm, failed to inform the firm of his practice on the side, and created duplicate records to conceal the practice and to divert fees into his own accounts.

(Mike Frisch)