Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 17142
Attorney Name Frankel, Mark David
DBP Docket No. 155 DB 2001 & 94 DB 2002
Supreme Court Docket No. No. 915, DD #3
County York
Disciplinary Counsel Patti Bednarik & E.Frownfelter
Counsel for Respondent Joshua Lock & Albert Blakey
Decision Date 2004-05-24
Effective Date 2004-06-24
Case Digest Respondent was found guilty of committing an indecent assault on one of his clients in violation of RPC 8.4(b), and inappropriately touched another client. Respondent induced the clients to consent to the touching by false statements that he needed to examine them for evidentiary purposes, that he needed to test whether they trusted him, or on other false pretenses. In addition, Respondent was found to have repeatedly requested that young male clients disrobe, and made misrepresentations to his clients about the reasons that they needed to disrobe. Respondent falsely advised his clients that they needed to disrobe to help prepare their legal cases. Several former clients and others testified to similar events over many years, establishing a common plan or scheme as allowed under Rule of Evidence of 404(b). The Supreme Court disbarred Respondent. The Disciplinary Board found, “Respondent’s actions toward his clients constitute the worst sort of abuse of authority and cannot be condoned. Respondent tricked and deceived his clients in order to sexually gratify himself. The damage Respondent has caused the legal profession by his actions is immeasurable and there is no doubt that his conduct has had an adverse impact on the public trusts in attorneys.”
Rule Violation(s) 8.4(b), 8.4(c) -- 1.7(b)[not found]
Discipline Imposed Disbarment
Points of Law At ODC’s request, the PA Supreme Court partially sealed the record and redacted the Disciplinary Board Report to protect the identities of the witnesses. ODC presented numerous witnesses under Rule of Evidence of 404(b) to prove a common plan or scheme.
Report/Opinion Download