Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 2705
Attorney Name Chadwick, H. Beatty
DBP Docket No. 3 DB 1997
Supreme Court Docket No. No. 292 DD No. 3
County Delaware
Disciplinary Counsel Suzy S. Moore
Counsel for Respondent Dana Garrity
Decision Date 2005-04-27
Effective Date 2005-05-27
Case Digest This matter involves two disciplinary cases Ė a criminal conviction case and a contempt of court case. Respondent has been incarcerated since April 5, 1995. Respondent was involved in acrimonious divorce proceedings with his wife in the early 1990s. A court order was entered prohibiting Respondent from assigning, concealing, secreting, or dissipating marital assets. The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas entered an arrest warrant for Respondent because he did not comply with that court order and he did not comply with orders directing him to return $2.5 million to the marital estate for purposes of support and equitable distribution. Respondent knew of the arrest warrant and was represented by counsel at the time it was issued, but did not turn himself in to arresting authorities. Approximately, six months after the warrant was issued, two deputy sheriffs arrested Respondent during a dental office visit. Respondent fought the arrest and was charged and convicted of simple assault. The matter was heard in two separate disciplinary hearings before two separate hearing committees. During the criminal conviction case, ODC offered the testimony of the arresting officers. Respondent offered the testimony of several character witnesses in addition to his own testimony. Respondent did not express remorse for his criminal conviction. Respondent argued that the disciplinary matter was time barred under Disciplinary Board Rule ß 85.10(a) and (b) and by the doctrine of laches. The Hearing Committee rejected Respondentís claims that the action was time barred and recommended that Respondent receive a private reprimand. During the contempt of court case, ODC offered the testimony of Kevin McCullough, Esquire, Respondentís wifeís counsel in the domestic case, and copies of court orders and judicial opinions entered in Respondentís civil case in response to Respondentís numerous appeals and habeas corpus petitions. Respondent offered the transcript of his character witnesses from the disciplinary hearing in the criminal conviction case and his own testimony. Respondent did not express remorse. The Hearing Committee recommended a three-year suspension. The Disciplinary Board consolidated the cases for consideration. The Disciplinary Board did not find that the proceeding was time barred and rendered an opinion recommending that Respondent be suspended for five years. The Supreme Court entered an Order suspending Respondent for five years.
Rule Violation(s) RPC 8.4(c) and RPC 8.4(d); Pa.R.D.E. 214(i) and Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(1)
Discipline Imposed Suspension for five years
Points of Law Respondents who openly defy numerous valid and enforceable court orders and who show no remorse or comprehension of the wrongful nature of such conduct are unfit to practice law.
Report/Opinion Download