A Vast Conspiracy

A five-year suspension has been ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for an attorney’s conduct in litigation relating to his business tax obligations

By Petition for Discipline filed on December 6, 2023, Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged Respondent, Richard Joseph Silverberg, with violating RPC 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(a), 8.2(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). These charges are based on allegations that Silverberg impugned the integrity of Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Joshua H. Roberts in pleadings and correspondence in state and federal court cases, refused to comply with multiple discovery orders issued by Judge Roberts, and failed to appear for contempt hearings scheduled by Judge Roberts. Silverberg filed an Answer to the Petition for Discipline on January 29, 2024. Therein, Silverberg alleged his actions were proper and excused because he was the victim of a conspiracy intended to prevent him from publishing a book exposing alleged past corporate misconduct. Silverberg claimed that, following his offer to sell the publishing rights to the entities that were the books’ subjects, those entities and others acting in concert with them used their contacts at the City of Philadelphia to try to stop him from publishing his book. Silverberg claims they pursued this goal by allegedly causing the City’s Law Department to improperly pursue collection of a 2008 tax judgment and to bring time-barred fraudulent transfer litigation against him. In his Answer, Silverberg accused Office of Disciplinary Counsel of improper conduct in investigating and filing the Petition for Discipline and of joining the conspiracy against him.

Shortly after Silverberg filed his Answer to the Petition for Discipline, he filed Silverberg v. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2:24-cv-00924 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2024) (Silverberg IV). Therein, he reiterated the conspiracy allegations he had raised in his Answer and named 29 entities and individuals as defendants, including Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Chief Disciplinary Counsel Thomas J. Farrell, and Disciplinary Counsel Richard Hernandez, who prosecuted the instant matter.

A Hearing Committee was appointed in this matter on March 7, 2024. On March 8, 2024, Silverberg advised the Committee Chair in writing that he refused to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, that the proceedings were preempted by federal court cases he filed, and that the proceedings were otherwise being pursued for unlawful and unethical purposes.

On March 8, 2024, Silverberg filed a Motion for Deferment with the Board asking that the disciplinary proceedings be stayed until such time as the federal court cases concluded.

The hearing went forward.

Genesis

This matter arises out of a Complaint the City of Philadelphia filed against Silverberg and his law firm, Richard J. Silverberg & Associates, P.C., on March 11, 2008, seeking payment of unpaid business privilege and wage taxes for the period 1992 through 2004 (the “2008 tax case”). 

After judgment and the City’s assertion of a lien there had been a collection delay

The multi-year passage of time between the entry of the judgment in the 2008 tax case and the initiation of collection activity on that judgment in 2019 was not an unusual or atypical amount of time from judgment to collection across the tax unit’s entire portfolio of judgments.

The misconduct relates in part to Respondent’s statements concerning the assigned judge and a lawsuit against the judge

The credible testimony of Judge Roberts, Mr. Cullin, and Mr. Wulko, in conjunction with Petitioner’s exhibits, establish that Silverberg had no good faith basis for the statements challenging Judge Roberts’ integrity and competence made in the Amended Complaint in Silverberg II, that those statements were frivolous, and that Silverberg made those statements knowing they were false or in reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.

After the judge held Respondent in contempt

By letter dated July 19, 2021, sent by email to then-Chief Justice Max Baer and then-President Judge Fox, Silverberg contended that:

a. “Judge Roberts is either fundamentally incompetent, compromised, and/or engaged in a conspiracy to corrupt the outcome of the above-referenced proceedings;” 

b. Judge Roberts and “the City” had “engaged in a fraud and/or coverup,” they had also engaged “in both civil and criminal violations,” Silverberg was “meeting with prosecutors for purposes of pursuing criminal charges against City officials, lawyers in the Law Department, Judge Roberts, and possibly others,” and Silverberg was “confident” that “criminal charges ultimately will be filed;”

c. Silverberg was “facing fines of $2,500/day, the threat of imprisonment for failure to comply with discovery-related order(s), and a ‘knock-down’ order for purposes of gaining forcible entry to [Silverberg’s] apartment – all of which are illegitimate;”

d. Judge Roberts had “issued an illegitimate order in an illegitimate proceeding” when Judge Roberts issued the July 14, 2021 Order, which order Silverberg claimed violated Administrative Order No. 18 of 2021 promulgated by President Judge Fox;

e. “the City and Judge Roberts (upon his introduction to the cases) knowingly have engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct” by violating the Pennsylvania statute prohibiting official oppression, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301; and among all the government officials directly involved

f. “Judge Roberts is the worst offender – he is supposed to support and defend the Constitution and not violate it, and certainly not use it to violate the rights of others.”

Conclusion

The facts demonstrate that in pleadings and correspondence Silverberg filed in two civil cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and a civil case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Silverberg impugned the integrity and qualifications of Judge Roberts by making statements Silverberg knew to be false or in reckless disregard as to their truth and falsity. Silverberg failed to comply with multiple orders issued by Judge Roberts in the two Common Pleas civil cases directing Silverberg to provide responses to discovery requests filed by the City of Philadelphia and to appear for depositions and failed to appear for contempt hearings scheduled by Judge Roberts.

Aggravating factors

Considering this record, we find two weighty aggravating factors. First, Silverberg failed to appear for the hearing. Silverberg’s nonappearance at his own disciplinary hearing signifies the ultimate act of disinterest in his professional license and weighs heavily in aggravation. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lon VanDusen Hughes, No. 128 DB 2021 (D. Bd. Rpt. 8/22/2022) (S. Ct. Order 10/25/2022). Particularly troubling here is that Silverberg participated in the process by answering the Petition for Discipline and filing post-hearing briefs. Yet Silverberg refused to attend the hearing. He correctly states that he is not required to attend the hearing (Respondent’s Brief on Exceptions, p. 5), yet his failure to do so projects an explicit lack of respect for the disciplinary proceedings that cannot be ignored.

The second weighty aggravating factor is Silverberg’s lack of remorse. There is no evidence of record to support a finding that Silverberg bears any responsibility for his misconduct or is sorry for it. In fact, the record demonstrates the opposite. Silverberg’s March 4, 2024 complaint that commenced Silverberg IV exemplifies his current lack of remorse, as he continues to make false and frivolous allegations against Judge Roberts and others, including attorneys for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Silverberg’s successive filings, culminating in the latest filing, demonstrate his troubling penchant for adding as defendants to his lawsuits those lawfully charged with adjudicating proceedings in which he is involved when he is displeased with the outcomes of those proceedings. The record establishes that Silverberg fails to recognize his wrongdoing, accept responsibility and show remorse, and further demonstrates that he is unrepentant and has no regard for his actions. These failures constitute weighty aggravating factors.

(Mike Frisch)