Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 76040
Attorney Name Campanella, Laura Ann
DBP Docket No. 45 DB 2002
Supreme Court Docket No. 653 D.D. No. 3
County Out of State
Disciplinary Counsel John Francis Dougherty
Counsel for Respondent None
Decision Date 2001-04-02
Effective Date 2001-05-02
Case Digest The Respondent worked as a staff attorney for the Seventeenth Judicial Court in Florida and one of her duties was to prepare petitions for protection against domestic violence and repeat violence. In August1999 a wife filed a petition for protection against domestic violence against her husband and the Respondent prepared an order granting the petition which was signed by a Judge. The Respondent then noticed that the same women had filed a similar petition for protection against repeat violence by her brother-in-law. The Judge who had signed the first order had left for the day and the Respondent, without contacting that Judge or the duty Judge or having any other Judge review the second petition, photocopied the first Order, attached it to the second Petition, and submitted those documents for filing. The Judge discovered the counterfeit order the following week and issued a corrective order. In Florida disciplinary proceedings the Respondent executed a Conditional Guilty Plea and Consent Judgment. By order of July 13, 2000 the Respondent was suspended in Florida for 91 days for violations of Rules Regulating Florida Bar 3-4.3 [The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed within or outside the state of Florida and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor may constitute a cause for discipline.]; 4-8.4(c) [A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.]; 4-8.4(d) [A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice]. Based on this suspension, which the Respondent self-reported to Pennsylvania in December2000, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania by ORDER of February 5, 2001 directed the Respondent to inform the Court of any claim she had that the imposition of identical or comparable discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted and the reasons therefore. The Respondent filed an Answer that she did not oppose a 91 day suspension in Pennsylvania, which suspension was imposed by order of April 2, 2001.
Rule Violation(s) Rule 216, Pa.R.D.E.
Discipline Imposed 91 day reciprocal suspension
Points of Law The fabrication and filing of a Court order is dishonest conduct in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of RPC 8.4(d).
Report/Opinion not available