||In January 2001, Respondent appeared in court for his clientís nunc pro tunc summary appeal resulting from a motor vehicle code citation. The Commonwealth at that time agreed to withdraw the more serious charge in exchange for the client pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The Commonwealth only agreed to this disposition based upon Respondentís representation that the police officer (who was not present at that time) had agreed. After carefully reviewing the testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing, a majority of the Court concluded that Respondent had falsely represented to the ADA that the police officer had agreed to the disposition and, additionally, that the fraudulent misrepresentation was of a material fact and was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Hearing Committee and the Disciplinary Board for disbarment, the Court believed there was sufficient mitigation to warrant a five year suspension. The dissenting opinion of two Justices was in favor of dismissal of the charges, believing there was insufficient evidence to establish any violation.