Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 42384
Attorney Name Mainor , Karen R.
DBP Docket No. 135 DB 2005
Supreme Court Docket No. 1308 DD No 3
County Philadelphia
Disciplinary Counsel Robert P. Fulton
Counsel for Respondent Sharon Williams Losier (first hearing only)
Decision Date 2008-03-10
Effective Date 2012-04-09
Case Digest Respondent was transferred to inactive status for non-compliance with CLE. Respondent was found to have been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law on 3 occasions including 2 litigation matters in Philadelphia. 1 of the 3 matters was for a family member (litigation). Respondent also was engaged in litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Respondent failed to inform that court that she had been transferred to inactive status and when it came to light allowed the court to believe her inactive status was because of health issues rather than failure to comply with CLE. Respondent proffered Braun mitigation that she was suffering from physical problems and depression but neither the Hearing Committee nor the Board found that Respondent’s two physicians connected any of Respondent’s maladies with the charged misconduct. Both the Hearing Committee and Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for one year and one day. Respondent attempted to untimely file a petition for review and filed a petition to file the petition for review nunc pro tunc, which ODC opposed. The Supreme Court denied the foregoing petition and entered an order for suspension of one year and one day. Respondent attempted to file a petition for reconsideration that was rejected by the Supreme Court Prothonotary as untimely.
Rule Violation(s) RPC 1.16(a)(1); RPC 1.16(a)(2); RPC 1.16(d); RPC 3.3(a)(1); RPC 4.1(a); RPC 5.5(a); RPC 5.5(b); RPC 8.4(c); and Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(3) via Pa.R.D.E. 217(a), 217(b), 217(c)(1), 217(c)(2), 217(d), 217(e), 217(j)(2), 217(j)(3), 217(j)(4).
Discipline Imposed Suspension for 1 year and 1 day
Points of Law Respondent attempted to prove Braun mitigation by producing two physicians who diagnosed Respondent with fibromyalgia and depression but the Hearing Committee and the Board determined that there was no causal connection between the fibromyalgia and depression and the charged misconduct – i.e., misrepresentation and the unauthorized practice of law. The Board stated in its recommendation that “the disciplinary sanctions meted out in Pennsylvania regarding the unauthorized practice of law have been consistent through the recent years. Suspension of one year and one day has been the primary sanction used to address this misconduct. An established line of cases reflects the Supreme Court’s stance that practicing law while on inactive status is a serious disciplinary offense and has serious ramifications for members of the public who unwittingly and unknowingly retain or continue to employ an unlicensed lawyer.”
Report/Opinion Download