Cases of Interest from 2025
Each year, we publish 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.
Florida Supreme Court Rejects Special Admission for Government Lawyers
The Supreme Court of Florida
rejected a proposal from Attorney General James Uthmeier that would have allowed certain lawyers admitted in other states to practice in Florida without ever taking the state’s bar exam.
The proposal
would have allowed lawyers already licensed and in good standing in other states to work for Florida government offices for up to three years without passing the Florida exam. Uthmeier argued that the state and public sector agencies are finding it difficult to recruit enough lawyers to meet needs. Florida, unlike most states,
does not allow reciprocal admission of lawyers in good standing in other jurisdictions.
The petition
argued, “In many cases, those lawyers forgo or leave much more lucrative employment in private practice to serve the public. Importantly, moving to Florida and taking the Florida Bar examination is often a key impediment because of the timing of their government appointment and the dates the bar examination is given.”
However, the Florida Bar, which has long jealously guarded admission to the state bar, objected to the proposal, arguing that it would violate part of the state Constitution that gives the Supreme Court “exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law,” giving that authority to the executive.
In a one-paragraph order, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously denied the petition, noting that the current certification program requires a certified government lawyer to have applied for admission to the Florida bar and to take the next available bar examination. The Court found that this requirement “strikes the appropriate balance between accommodating the government’s workforce needs and ensuring that those authorized to practice law in Florida possess the requisite knowledge of Florida law, technical skill and moral character to do so.”
ABA Formal Opinion Addresses Information Revealed in Motion to Withdraw
On December 5, 2025, the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued
Formal Opinion No. 519,
addressing disclosure of information relating to the representation in a motion to withdraw from a representation.
The Opinion begins with a recitation of the provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding withdrawal under
Rule 1.16. The Committee concludes, “A lawyer may disclose information relating to the representation only if the client gives informed consent, the court orders the lawyer to do so, or the lawyer is required to do so by court rules or other applicable law, or there is an applicable exception to the duty of confidentiality.”
The Committee notes that different courts may require different levels of disclosure in support of a lawyer’s application to withdraw. Some have given lawyers broad latitude to disclose client information, and some have disciplined lawyers for revealing too much in the application. Some have taken a middle ground by allowing lawyers to submit information relating to the representation
in camera or under seal to the extent necessary to support a withdrawal motion.
Disclosure of information is easier to justify if the lawyer can obtain the client’s informed consent to the withdrawal or, if necessary, to the disclosure of information. If the lawyer cannot obtain client consent, and the court requires an explanation, the lawyer should keep disclosure of information about the client relationship to a minimum. The Opinion notes that Comment 3 to Rule 1.16 states, “The lawyer’s statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient.” Circumstances that do not relate to the attorney-client relationship, such as health conditions or personal circumstances that inhibit the lawyer’s ability to continue, may be revealed.
Rule 1.6(b) sets forth some exceptions to the principle of confidentiality. It allows a lawyer to reveal information, such as the need to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud and to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another. A lawyer may reveal information to a limited extent if the judge orders the lawyer to make further disclosure. The lawyer may also reveal a limited amount of information about payment when the termination is for failure to pay the lawyer’s fees. The Opinion discusses some other circumstances where limited disclosure is allowed.
The last portion of the Opinion sets forth a multi-step approach the lawyer may follow in obtaining leave to withdraw, including submitting a bare-bones motion to withdraw, then providing escalating levels of information if the Court insists on further disclosure.
The Opinion concludes, “Ultimately, the lawyer’s paramount duty is to preserve client confidentiality, even at the risk that the tribunal may deny the motion to withdraw. The Rules require that any disclosure in support of withdrawal be narrowly tailored, protective of the client’s interests, and undertaken only within the scope of an applicable exception.”
Note that this Opinion is advisory only. It is not binding on the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or any other Court.
ABA Provides Ethical Guidance for Lawyers Changing Firms
The American Bar Association has published an article written by Pennsylvania-licensed attorney
Jennifer Ellis, setting forth
ethical considerations for lawyers changing law firms. She addresses ten points, briefly summarized as follows:
1.
Contacting the Affected Clients: The lawyer should make sure appropriate notice is given to all clients. Firm policies may provide guidance, but firm policies must comply with ethical requirements.
2.
Do Not Restrict the Client’s Choice: Lawyers and firms should bear in mind that the client has the choice of whether to stay with the firm, transfer to the departing lawyer, or retain an entirely different firm.
3.
Do Not Attack the Firm or Other Attorneys: It is inappropriate for either the firm or the departing attorney to denigrate the other. It is better to focus on the positive.
4.
Create a Joint Notice if Possible: It is recommended that the lawyer and firm cooperate in the creation of a professional notice that informs the client of their options. The article sets forth list of matters to be addressed.
5.
When the Firm and Departing Lawyer Cannot Cooperate: If the firm and lawyer cannot agree on a notice, it is appropriate that both provide notices that clearly and accurately set forth the client’s options.
6.
Checking for Conflicts: The article provides a list of practices and precautions that should be taken to prevent the development of conflicts of interest with either the old or new firm, and to implement screening procedures where needed.
7.
Managing Files and Property: The article notes that different approaches may be necessary for electronic and physical documents. In any event, the client’s directions should be followed as to all data and property.
8.
Proper Termination: If a client wishes to stay with the firm, chooses a different firm, or the lawyer decides not to continue with the client, it is important to handle termination of representation appropriately as required under Model Rule 1.16. Motions to withdraw from cases may be needed.
9.
Supervisory Responsibilities: Lawyers with supervisory responsibility over other lawyers or staff should make certain their obligations as both a supervisor and an employee under Model Rules 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 are attended to.
10.
After Departing: Upon getting established with a new firm, the lawyer should follow up with clients, especially those who have chosen to continue with the lawyer, that their files were properly transferred and the transfer carried out. The author suggests documenting this process in case problems arise.
In conclusion, the author states, “The key principle to remember is that, when changing firms, the ethical priority is to put client interests first, maintain confidentiality, and manage conflicts responsibly. At the same time, the old firm must respect the departing lawyer’s right to depart, and all lawyers and staff should respect both firms’ operational needs.”
Justice Jackson Writes “Calvinball” Into Supreme Court History
Ken Bresler, owner of
Clear Writing Company, gives a nod to Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for bringing forward his choice of the
Legal Term of the Year: “Calvinball.”
For those who were not followers of Bill Watterston’s late lamented comic
Calvin and Hobbes (1985-1995),
Calvinball was the favorite game of Calvin and his tiger companion, Hobbes. It is characterized by a complete lack of fixed rules, allowing any player to make up rules on the spot. As Calvin himself
said, the only permanent rule is that you can’t play it the same way twice. Sometimes the results can be
humiliating, or even
turned against the creator himself.
In the following decades, “Calvinball” has been
turned into a word of common usage, including in legal circles. It has even found its way into the
Oxford English Dictionary.
Bresler states that the term was
highlighted by Justice Jackson in her dissent in the matter of
National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association (August 21, 2025). She began her opinion, “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.” Justice Jackson’s citation has in turn enshrined “Calvinball jurisprudence” as a term at
Dictonary.com.
For those curious about evolving legal terminology,
Bresler’s Law Dictionary, while not as comprehensive as traditional legal dictionaries, provides an interesting list of emerging terms that other dictionaries may not have picked up yet.
Board Vice-Chair Shohin H. Vance presented one of the two (the other being from the California delegation) state mini-sessions. Vice-Chair Vance provided a brief overview of the adjudication of In the Matter of Anthony C. Cappuccio and led a discussion on differing state practices regarding adjudication.
