Amendments to Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement
On September 19, 2003, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted three amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, to be effective upon their publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The following amendments have been adopted:
- Rule 203(b), under "Grounds for Discipline," has a new subparagraph
which states that a lawyer may be disciplined for "Failure by a respondent-attorney
without good cause to comply with any order under the Enforcement Rules of
the Supreme Court, the Board, a hearing committee, or a special master."
- Rule 207(b)(2), under "Disciplinary Counsel," is amended to state
that Disciplinary Counsel may proceed to make a recommendation for disposition
once a respondent-attorney has been notified of the allegations against him
or her, and the time for response allowed in formal proceedings has expired.
- Two paragraphs of Rule 208(b), regarding procedure at formal hearings, have been modified. Paragraph (3) now states that if a lawyer fails to answer any allegation in a Petition for Discipline, that allegation will be deemed admitted. Previously, if the respondent-attorney failed to file an answer, the charges were considered "at issue" and had to be proven by Disciplinary Counsel. Paragraph (4) is modified to provide that no evidence with respect to factual allegations deemed or expressly admitted may be presented at hearing, except for good cause shown.