April 22, 2006
Mark Scolforo
HARRISBURG, PA - In the past few months, Pennsylvania lawyers have been punished for allowing clients to perjure themselves, misusing client funds, ignoring a subpoena, practicing without a license and having criminal convictions.
Keeping the state's 56,900 practicing lawyers in line is the job of the state Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board. It fielded about 4,700 new complaints last year, resulting in discipline for 347 lawyers that ranged from informal admonition to disbarment.
Typically, about two or three dozen Pennsylvania lawyers are disbarred annually, and all are eventually eligible for reinstatement.
The board has tried in recent years to improve its services. It has established a Web site with information about every lawyer in Pennsylvania, made its filings and hearings more open to the public, and required lawyers to tell their clients if they don't carry at least $100,000 in malpractice insurance coverage.
The reform efforts paid off in March when the nonprofit legal-consumer group HALT Inc. rated the state's lawyer discipline system fifth-best among the 50 states and Washington, D.C. Four years ago, HALT ranked Pennsylvania dead last.
"It matters because so many thousands - tens of thousands - of Pennsylvania consumers are relying on lawyers every year, sharing their deepest confidence in lawyers in their most critical moments of their lives," said HALT's associate counsel, Suzanne M. Blonder, who helped prepare the study.
She said the system has been "doing a better job of protecting them from unethical, fraudulent, incompetent lawyers."
The vast majority of lawyers never get into trouble, but there are some patterns among those who do. Disciplinary Board Secretary Elaine M. Bixler said many problems come down to poor communication.
"Return phone calls, respond to letters - that's where we see the most common misconduct," she said. Alcoholism, drug abuse and compulsive gambling also are at the root of many lawyers' ethical misdeeds, she said.
Sole practitioners may not have others handling client funds, a separation of duties that larger firms have. Independent lawyers are also less likely to have experienced peers to whom they can turn for ethical feedback.
Sam Stretton, a West Chester lawyer who defends attorneys and judges who run into legal trouble, said he advises lawyers to carefully document phone calls.
"I always tell lawyers to sense when you have a problem client, and deal with it or get rid of them as a client," Stretton said. "Some people you'll never satisfy. And if you can smell them out, you're far better off."
The Disciplinary Board's funding - about $7.8 million last year - comes entirely from a $175 annual fee that all lawyers have to pay. The fee also underwrites a fund that reimburses people for damages caused by their attorneys.
Most of the complaints the board fields do not result in discipline. Some are ruled frivolous (often from prisoners or losing litigants), others are dropped once the lawyer contacts his or her client, and some do not involve ethical violations. In other cases, there is simply not enough evidence to go forward.
Last year, the court system began opening the public disciplinary hearings and records once formal charges are filed. Officials hope the change will increase public confidence in lawyer oversight.
"If you filed a complaint against a lawyer, you might want to attend the hearing and listen to the argument," said board executive director Joe Farrell. "It does enhance the integrity of the system."
Stretton said the Supreme Court also should consider reforming how it appoints disciplinary board members. The current board includes relatives of Justices Sandra Schultz Newman and Max Baer.
"These appointments are often friends of justices, relatives, people who know justices, maybe contributors," Stretton said. "A lot of these are good people. But what I'm getting at is the process leaves a lot to be desired."
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights Reserved
This article ran in the following publications:
|
