The Cleaner

A five-year suspension has been imposed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, effective as of the date of a 2020 interim suspension.

A criminal conviction

Pursuant to the Criminal Complaint and supporting Affidavit of Probable Cause, one of Respondent’s clients reported to law enforcement that during a consultation regarding a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, Respondent initiated a conversation with the client wherein he informed the client that he can “wash” the client’s money or “clean” it and not pay taxes. Respondent told the client he launders money for numerous large-scale drug dealers who are his clients.

In October 2019, the Pennsylvania State Police developed a confidential informant (Cl) who contacted Respondent about starting a business and laundering money.

The Cl placed a recorded call to Respondent and the two spoke about hiding money and managing money for the Cl’s business and Respondent agreed to meet with the Cl.

On October 23, 2019, the Cl met with Respondent at his office. The Cl informed Respondent that, while he has a business, he makes a large sum of money by selling cocaine and needs to keep his money safe.

Respondent informed the Cl that he could form a shell company for him. When asked about fees, Respondent replied, “committing a crime is $10,000$20,000 for me to take the step,” and requested $10,000 from the Cl to start the process.

On November 7, 2019, the Cl met with Respondent at which time the Cl provided Respondent with the personal information of an undercover officer (UC) that he wanted to be identified as the business owner.

At that time the Cl paid Respondent $5,000 in recorded confidential funds.

Plea

On June 3, 2021, Respondent pled guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, at Docket number CP-26-CR-00006768-2020, to Criminal Attempt-Dealing in Proceeds of Unlawful Activities, 18 Pa.C.S. §901(a), a felony of the first degree.

There were also several client related misconduct matters and recordkeeping violations.

Sanction

The egregious facts of Respondent’s cumulative misconduct, standing on their own, could well result in disbarment. Conviction of felonies, neglect of multiple client matters, and misappropriation of unearned fees are serious offenses that in the past have resulted in the imposition of disbarment to address the egregious breach of trust occasioned by such misconduct. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony Jerome McKnight, No. 154 DB 2001 & 11 DB 2003 (D. Bd. Rpt. 10/28/2011) (S. Ct. Order 3/1/2012) (neglect in seven client matters whereby McKnight was retained to perform services, failed to communicate with clients, failed to perform the services, and failed to refund unearned fees; McKnight was separately convicted of drug offenses); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Robert S. Fisher, No. 52 DB 2005 (D. Bd. Rpt. 5/18/2006) (S. Ct. Order 9/19/2006) (Fisher neglected 12 client matters); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Samuel Foley, Jr., No. 201 DB 2014 (D. Bd. Rpt. 4/22/2014) (S. Ct. Order 8/4/2014) (Foley convicted of felony and misdemeanor drug offenses related to his involvement in delivery of a large quantity of marijuana); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Scott Lawrence Kramer, No. 127 DB 2017 (D. Bd. Rpt. 3/15/2019) (S. Ct. Order 7/30/2019) (Lawrence committed misconduct in six client matters and misappropriated client funds).

Here, we conclude that the mitigating factors of record compel a less severe sanction than disbarment. In mitigation of discipline, we accord weight to the following factors. Respondent presented evidence in support of his claim that his mental health disorders and substance addiction caused his misconduct. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Seymour Braun, 553 A.2d 894 (Pa. 1989). Upon review of the expert testimony and report of Ms. Deeds, the letter from Axiom Family Counseling, and Respondent’s testimony, we conclude that Respondent established by clear and convincing evidence that he suffered from psychiatric disorders which caused his misconduct, which evidence constitutes an appropriate consideration for mitigation of discipline. Ms. Deeds’ testimony was credible, established a causal link between Respondent’s mental health disorders and his criminal and professional misconduct, and was not refuted by any evidence to the contrary.

Specifically, Respondent suffered from opioid dependence, anxiety and depression, which were causal factors in his misconduct. Ms. Deeds treated Respondent for depression and anxiety, and despite having not treated him until he was already in remission for substance use, Ms. Deeds credibly made the link between Respondent’s diagnoses and his misconduct. The foundation of Ms. Deeds’ opinions is corroborated by the Axiom Family Counseling report and by Respondent’s own testimony. The record compellingly depicts the origins of Respondent’s drug use in college and escalation of substance abuse in the years that followed, to the point where he was dependent on drugs, was addicted, and lost control over the ability to manage his life. The record further details Respondent’s efforts to gain sobriety, which were initially unsuccessful but in the end achieved through counseling and participation in recovery programs. Respondent has maintained sobriety since 2020 and his prognosis is good that he will not commit misconduct in the future. We are satisfied on this record that Respondent met the Braun standard and is entitled to mitigation.

In addition to the evidence of Respondent’s psychiatric disorders, the record demonstrates other recognized factors for mitigation. Respondent expressed genuine remorse and accepted full responsibility for his misconduct. At the hearing, Respondent stipulated to a prima facie violation of the rules and Petitioner’s exhibits, which obviated the need for Petitioner to call fact witnesses. Respondent admitted on the record that he engaged in misconduct related to his criminal conviction as well as the nine other matters charged in the Petition for Discipline. Respondent understands the grave nature of his misconduct and the need for strict discipline. Respondent frankly acknowledged the damage his wrongful actions inflicted on the profession and apologized. Respondent’s credible expressions of remorse and accountability for his offenses are factors that weigh in favor of mitigation.

(Mike Frisch)