Each year, the Disciplinary Board's communications team publishes a recap of cases of note decided during the year. We focus on cases that shed light on the developing state of the practice of law, novel fact situations, and Rules of Professional Conduct not often raised. The following cases from 2025 caught our interest:
Jason Eric Fine, No. 5 DB 2025
This matter arose from a lawyer’s practice of arranging litigation loans for clients in advance of receipt of settlement funds. He admitted that he had referred 174 clients to a trucking company for presettlement loans without revealing that the company was owned by his father-in-law. He argued that this did not represent a conflict of interest because he did not personally benefit from the loans and was not a “parent, child, sibling, or spouse” of the lender within the meaning of Comment 11 to Rule 1.17 of the RPC. However, he conceded that the practice violated Rule 1.7(a)(2), conflict of interest, and Rule 1.8(e), providing financial assistance to a client. He consented to imposition of a Public Reprimand.
Erik Mark Helbing, No. 120 DB 2023
A Schuylkill County lawyer received a Public Reprimand for providing loan modification and debt relief services in six states. The Disciplinary Board found that he had failed to provide adequate services, rendering his fees excessive, failed to state in his retainer agreement that he was not admitted to practice in the jurisdictions in which clients resided, and failed to properly supervise his staff. The Board noted that RPC 5.7, addressing nonlegal services provided in connection with a law practice, provides that a lawyer is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct if the lawyer “knows or reasonably should know that the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship.” Helbing conceded that he should have known his clients would consider his relationship with them an attorney-client relationship.
Brian Dooley Kent, No. 37 DB 2025
This matter arose out of an attorney’s emotional and romantic involvement with a client.
Kent had a reputation as an advocate for victims of sexual abuse. The client retained him for a case against the Church of Scientology, alleging sexual abuse. The client lived in Australia. The Joint Petition recites that Kent and the client exchanged thousands of messages via text, telephone calls, emails, and WhatsApp. These communications soon veered into personal matters including expressions of interest in a sexual relationship and sexually oriented messages. During these communications, he expressed his concerns about maintaining a “professional distance,” and she spoke of being “stressed and confused.”
On two occasions, he traveled to Los Angeles to meet with the client which led to encounters in his hotel room in which she gave him a massage and they engaged in sexual touching, though not intercourse.
Kent subsequently informed the client that his firm would not represent her in the lawsuit, and she retained other counsel.
Kent admitted that his conduct violated RPC 1.7(a)(2) [representing a client when there is a concurrent conflict of interest], RPC 1.8(j) [sexual relations with a client when there was not a preexisting relationship], and RPC 1.16(a)(1) [failure to withdraw when continuing representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct]. Kent consented to a suspension for three years with one year served and two years stayed with two years’ probation.
Gary P. Lightman, No. 103 DB 2024
This is also a case involving inappropriate sexual behavior toward a client.
Lightman represented a woman in sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and hostile workplace environment claims against her employer. He referred her to counsel in New York State who filed a lawsuit in that jurisdiction with Lightman engaged to provide work on the case and receive a share of the recovery. Lightman and the client made plans to meet near her home in Florida to discuss the case. He arrived at her condo to pick her up for the meeting and asked to use the bathroom. While passing through her bedroom from the bathroom, he made an unwelcome verbal sexual advance. When she became upset at the advance, he told her to “lighten up.” When he brought her back to the condo after their lunch meeting, he again made an unwelcome verbal advance. After that, he held late-night or early-morning telephone calls with her, during some of which he made inappropriate sexual comments, and complained that she lacked a sense of humor. After the last such conversation, she terminated his representation.
Lightman acknowledged that his conduct was wrongful and in violation of New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2) which states, “[A] lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that … there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of a client will be adversely affected by the lawyer’s own financial, business, property or other personal interests.” He consented to a six-month suspension, stayed with six months’ probation.
Rebecca Catherine Stein, No. 39 DB 2024
This matter addressed an attorney’s fiduciary responsibilities for conduct outside the practice of law.
Stein served as Treasurer of the Fort Pitt Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Fort Pitt Blockhouse in 2018. In this capacity, she had sole authority to write checks on the organizations’ investment accounts which amounted to approximately $500,000. When a new Treasurer was appointed, Stein failed to turn over the organizations’ computer or to add the new Treasurer as a signatory on the accounts for several months. An investigation revealed that Stein had written checks in excess of $315,000 without seeking approval of the Board of Directors as required by policy; only $37,000 were legitimate organization expenses. The rest were for her own benefit including payments to personal credit cards and accounts. She had falsified records to conceal these payments.
Stein was charged with several theft-related offenses and pled guilty to Misapplication of Entrusted Funds, 18 Pa.C.S. §4113(a), a misdemeanor. She was sentenced to two years of probation. By agreement of the parties to discipline on consent, the Supreme Court suspended Stein for three years.