Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 33441
Attorney Name DeSimone, Mark Anthony
DBP Docket No. 11 DB 2002
Supreme Court Docket No. 719 DD No. 3
County Out of State
Disciplinary Counsel William R. Friedman
Counsel for Respondent none
Decision Date 2006-02-27
Effective Date 2006-02-27
Case Digest Petitioner, who had previously been suspended for two years and eight months, applied to be reinstated to practice in the Commonwealth. Office of Disciplinary Counsel opposed Petitionerís reinstatement based on Petitionerís incomplete Reinstatement Questionnaire and because he did not show that he had completed the required continuing legal education (CLE) courses. Petitioner submitted an Addendum to his Petition for Reinstatement and asked that a previously scheduled hearing be continued. The continuance was denied and the hearing held, at which time Petitioner offered his own testimony but called no witnesses on his behalf. The Hearing Committee held the record open for 60 days to permit Petitioner time to complete the CLE courses. Subsequently, the record was closed; Petitioner failed to provide proof that he had complied with the CLE requirements and failed to file a brief 20 days after completing the courses. The Hearing Committee found that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that he has the competency and learning in the law for admission to practice law in Pennsylvania. The Hearing Committee further found that Petitioner failed to prove that his resumption of the practice of law within the Commonwealth will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, nor subversive to the public interest. The Disciplinary Board found that because of Petitionerís failure to complete the CLE requirements, it was not necessary to fully examine his moral qualifications. However, insofar as Petitioner offered no evidence of such qualifications, the Board found that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Rule Violation(s) Pa.R.D.E. 218(a); 218(c)(3)(1); 218(e) Disciplinary Board Rule 89.279(a)
Discipline Imposed Reinstatement Denied
Points of Law Attorney who petitions for reinstatement has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in the Commonwealth. Petitioner has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that his resumption of practice within the Commonwealth will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest.
Report/Opinion not available