Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 19261
Attorney Name Tomasco, Mary Ellen
DBP Docket No. 111 DB 2004
Supreme Court Docket No. No. 1097 DD No. 3
County Chester
Disciplinary Counsel Harold E. Ciampoli, Jr.
Counsel for Respondent John Rogers Carroll
Decision Date 1969-12-31
Effective Date 1969-12-31
Case Digest Tomasco filed a Petition for Reinstatement following her suspension for a period of one year and one day imposed on March 10, 2006. Petitioner's misconduct leading to the suspension was a conflict of interest with her client, a mentally incompetent individual for whom she was the attorney and had power of attorney authority. Without obtaining any written waiver or consent, Petitioner drafted and executed an indenture and mortgage in the amount of $275,000.00 to finance her purchase of land in New Mexico. Petitioner failed to obtain separate counsel to represent the client and failed to take any steps to have the indenture transaction recorded. Subsequent to her suspension, Petitioner continued to act as power of attorney for the client and for another client. Petitioner failed to notify either client or their beneficiaries of her status as a suspended attorney, as required by the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. During the time of her suspension both clients passed away and Petitioner was appointed executor of both estates. Petitioner received $17,500.00 from one state as a personal representative commission. This estate involved charitable bequests greater than $25,000.00 and as such written notice was required to be given to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. The notice given to the AG did not include notice that the individual acting as executor was a disciplined attorney whose misconduct occurred as a result of her previous handling of the estate in question.
Rule Violation(s)
Discipline Imposed Petition for Reinstatement denied
Points of Law Petitioner demonstrated poor judgment and motive in her decision to continue as the client's agent and to serve as executrix for the estate following her suspension, instead of dissociating herself from the source of her original conflict of interest. This behavior indicates that she had no greater appreciation of her wrongdoing and has not rehabilitated herself from her original misconduct, which involved the same lack of judgment and foresight as to the implications of her actions.
Report/Opinion Download