Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Pennsylvania: Lawyer’s suspension vacated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In Re Counsel v. Debbie Ann Carlitz, 1336 No. 131 DB 2007. (March 26, 2008)
Following the submission to the Supreme Court of a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline, Debbie Ann Carlitz was suspended on consent for a period of one year and one day by Order of the Court dated March 26, 2008 according to the Disciplinary Board Rules Rule 277 Pa EE §§ 91.91-91.91 of. Petitioner requested review of this matter as she claimed that she did not enter into the consent discipline knowingly, freely or voluntarily. By Order of May 11, 2009, the Court remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Respondent entered into Joint Stipulations of Fact and Law on August 27, 2009. The Hearing Committee accepted the Stipulations and based on the information contained therein, recommended that the Suspension Order be vacated and the matter remanded. The Joint Stipulations of Fact and Law support the finding that Respondent did not personally endorse the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline or expressly authorize anyone to sign the Joint Petition on her behalf. It is clear that Bonnie Sweeten, Respondent's paralegal, handled all aspects of the consent discipline and never revealed the circumstances to Respondent. Respondent remained ignorant of her suspended status until it was pointed out to her by a colleague. For these reasons, the Board recommends that the Suspension Order at 131DB 2007 be vacated and the matter remanded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for further consideration.
This case teaches the importance of the lawyer’s duty under Pa R.D.E. Rule 215 (e) and 215 (g) that states that an attorney has an affirmative duty to know the status of his privilege to practice law and comply with professional requirements in Re Anonymous No 123 DB 1996 (Simon Belli,111), 41 Pa.D. & C. 4th 290,299-300(1998). An attorney cannot continue practicing law after being transferred to inactive status for failing to fulfill continuing legal education requirements. An attorney must enter into the consent discipline knowingly, freely or voluntarily.

No comments:

Post a Comment