From the Chair
 

The 2025-2026 Annual Attorney Registration deadline was Tuesday, July 1, 2025. My fellow Disciplinary Board Members and I strongly encourage all Pennsylvania attorneys who have not yet completed their registration obligations for the coming registration cycle to do so as soon as possible in order to avoid the imposition of late payment penalties or the administrative suspension. Please note that late fees will be assessed after July 16th and after August 1st. Approximately ninety-six percent of attorneys have completed the yearly registration obligation as of today’s newsletter publication.

Each July, new Members are appointed to serve as Hearing Committee members while others are reappointed to additional three-year terms. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere gratitude to all new Members accepting this tremendous responsibility, reappointed Members once again heeding the call in support of their communities, and former Members whose tenure has recently ended, having dutifully completed their service toward the mission of the Board. Critical to the Board’s most sensitive work are its adept volunteer Hearing Committee Members. Hearing Committee Members assess Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendations for discipline and conduct hearings on formal charges of professional misconduct and petitions for reinstatement. The role these individuals play in Pennsylvania’s attorney disciplinary system cannot be overstated, and the Board is most grateful for their generosity of time and talent.

Having completed twelve years (not consecutively) as a Hearing Committee Member prior to being appointed to the Board, I can personally attest to the hard work that Hearing Committee Members are called upon to perform. At the same time, I can also attest to the fact that this work is some of the most important and rewarding work you can do as an attorney.

With gratitude,
 
David S. Senoff
Board Chair

Annual Attorney Registration

June 2025

Disability Inactive Marnie Burk Mark D. Mungello Mitchell A. Sommers
Suspension Faye Riva Cohen Mary Margaret Cowan	Disbarment Alan Kane John T. O’Malley

June 2025

 

Upcoming Public Proceedings

A Lawyer’s Obligation to Truth
 
As is true of other areas of the law, the disciplinary rules sometimes limit culpability for inaccurate representations only if performed with knowledge of the falsity. For a lawyer, however, “knowledge” carries an obligation to truth lay people do not bear.
 
Examples of a knowledge requirement abound. A few examples: A lawyer cannot counsel a client to engage in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent (RPC 1.2(d)); a lawyer cannot offer evidence he knows is false, and if he later comes to know of its falsity, he must correct it (RPC 3.3(a)(3)); when representing a client, he cannot knowingly make false statements of material fact to third parties (RPC 4.1(a)); and, in any context, he cannot make statements he knows to be false about a public legal official’s qualifications or integrity (RPC 8.2(a)).
 
When we judge lawyers under the Rules of Professional Conduct, however, “knowledge,” “know,” and “knowingly” mean something more demanding than these terms do when applied to a layperson’s state of mind. In other legal contexts, public figure defamation cases for example, if a person subjectively believes a falsity is true, he cannot be penalized for publishing or acting upon it, even if he was negligent in failing to investigate the truth of the matter. Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667 (1989). A different rule governs lawyer discipline. Lawyers have an obligation to make a reasonable inquiry into a statement’s truth or conduct’s legality─the sort of inquiry a reasonably competent attorney would undertake─before making the representation.
 
Our Supreme Court has held that a lawyer is chargeable with knowledge when he fails to make that reasonable inquiry. E.g., ODC v. Surrick; ODC v. Price. And the Court has many times expressed its disapproval for mendacious lawyers. E.g., ODC v. Holston; ODC v. Grigsby (both resulting in disbarment). In my experience at ODC, propounding falsities to courts is the violation most likely to result in lengthy suspension or disbarment. Thus, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani found himself disbarred for making claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election based upon flimsy rumors he failed to reasonably investigate. Matter of Giuliani, 230 A.D.3d 101 (NY App.Div. 1^st Dept. 2024).
 
Are these instances of courts making the job of disciplinary authorities too easy or penalizing lawyers for vigorous advocacy? To the contrary, the demand that lawyers strive to ascertain truth before advancing a claim arises from the epistemic rules in which lawyers are trained as well as from prudent concern for the power a law license confers. We are trained to sift fact from fiction, and successful completion of that training entitles us to advise clients as to legal obligations and to represent them before courts. Any litigator knows that before she introduces evidence to persuade a fact-finder, she must investigate its basis in personal knowledge and its authenticity and test it with reagents that might dissolve its cogency: Does its source hold a bias? Do prior inconsistent statements or contrary solid evidence undermine its strength? A lawyer who fails to discharge this epistemic duty of reasonable investigation is not a fit lawyer.
 
Most important, lawyers’ heightened obligation to speak truth corresponds to our role in the American legal system. As the Preamble to the Rules tells us, we bear “a special responsibility for the quality of justice.” Comment [1]. This includes “preserving government under law” and challenging the government when it abuses its authority. Comment [11]. Implicit in these obligations is a special duty to use our skills to advance truth and ferret out falsity.
 
As our Supreme Court recently wrote, “The administration of justice is dependent on the honesty and integrity of the lawyers who practice in the legal system.” ODC v. Anonymous Attorney, 327 A.3d 192, 207 (PA 2024).

Thomas J. Farrell
Chief Disciplinary Counsel

Philadelphia Lawyer Receives Stayed Suspension for Trust Account, Fee Agreement Issues
 
A Philadelphia lawyer with more than fifty years’ experience in the practice of law agreed to a disciplinary disposition in which she received a suspension stayed by probation, after admitting to numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in her fee agreements and in her handling of fees and entrusted funds.
 
In a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent, Faye Riva Cohen admitted that she failed to properly handle her law firm's bank accounts, failed to correctly report all her accounts on her Annual Registration Forms and falsely certified on her forms that she was in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) and the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. Cohen also engaged in additional wrongdoing, including deceitful conduct regarding her fees, lack of competence, diligence, and communication in an estate matter. She failed to explain matters to the extent necessary to enable clients to make informed decisions regarding her representation and handling of her retainer fees. She acknowledged serious aggravating factors in failing to initially cooperate with ODC and undertake prompt remedial measures.
 
Many of Cohen’s problems stemmed from her practice of entering into oral fee agreements with clients over the telephone and then sending them fee agreements containing provisions which did not comply with the RPC. These provisions included fees paid in advance would be non-refundable, even if not earned, as well as fee payments that would be deposited directly into the firm’s general account and not a trust account. If the clients did not accept Cohen’s recommendations for settlement of a matter, they agreed to discharge her without refund of fees paid in advance.
 
Cohen agreed that these practices resulted in violation of nine of the RPC, relating to the scope of representation, explaining matters to clients and obtaining their informed consent, illegal or excessive fees, depositing client funds in a trust account, refunding unearned fees upon the termination of representation, and dishonest statements.
 
The parties agreed that suspension for one year and a day was the appropriate disposition but that mitigating factors existed, including Cohen’s long career, public service, admission of wrongdoing, amendment of her fee agreements and practices, and reimbursement of the affected clients. They agreed that the suspension should be stayed in full by a period of probation. The probation will be subject to conditions including taking CLE courses regarding IOLTA management and fee agreements. Upon consideration of the recommendation of a three-member Board panel, the Court granted the Joint Petition. 
 

---

New Jersey Lawyer Admonished for Allowing False Claims about Education
 
A New Jersey lawyer consented to imposition of a Letter of Admonition after admitting that he failed to take steps to correct false information about his educational credentials on his law firm’s website and his continuing education biography.
 
Paul N. Ambrose graduated from Seton Hall University and subsequently from Seton Hall University School of Law. Neither time did he achieve cum laude status. He later took coursework at New York University (NYU) School of Law toward an LLM degree but did not earn the degree.
 
Many years later, he joined a law firm. His biography on the firm’s website, which was written by someone else, stated that he graduated cum laude from Seton Hall and that he held an LLM degree from NYU. Although he did not personally prepare the biography, he conceded that he “could, and should have, corrected” the description of his academic credentials. This error was repeated when the firm merged with another and a new biography was prepared for the combined firm website.
 
Additionally, between 2014 and 2019, he conducted presentations at approximately twenty Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminars hosted by the National Business Institute (NBI). In 2014 or 2015, he directed NBI to remove the false references to his LLM degree and cum laude status from its CLE marketing materials. However, he conceded that NBI was “not consistent in removing” the false credentials from the marketing materials and that he did not follow up to confirm that such false information was removed. The Board’s letter stated, “By December 2016, you should have been keenly aware that your false academic credentials would continue to be published in NBI marketing materials.”
 
The Board’s letter stated that this conduct violated New Jersey RPC 7.1(a)(1) [false communications about the lawyer’s services] and (2) and RPC 8.4(c) [conduct involving dishonesty]. The Board found mitigating factors: (1) his actions did not appear to have resulted from any direct attempt at personal gain; (2) the passage of almost nine years since the false academic credentials last appeared in CLE marketing brochures or firm websites; (3) the lack of evidence that the conduct resulted in harm to any clients; and (4) the lack of prior discipline in a forty-five-year career at the bar. Accordingly, it deemed a Letter of Admonition to be the appropriate resolution.
 

---

Florida Lawyer Suspended for Deleting Files on Ex-Firm’s Drive
 
An inexperienced Florida lawyer was suspended for ninety days after a referee found that she had deleted files from a USB drive belonging to the law firm by whom she was formerly employed and for notices filed on behalf of firm clients after her departure from the firm and in her own litigation with the firm.
 
Alexa Martinez had only been admitted to the bar for two months when she was hired by Silverberg Brito, PLLC as an associate attorney. Silverberg terminated her employment four months later. After her employment was terminated, Martinez kept possession of a USB drive belonging to Silverberg. The firm demanded she return the drive. Martinez indicated that she would but failed to do so after several requests. When she finally did return the drive, all the files on it had been deleted. The referee found that Martinez’s deletion of the contents of the USB drive constituted violations of Rules 4-3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4-8.4(c) (“A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation . . . .”), and 4-8.4(d) (“conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
 
The referee also found that Martinez had engaged in minor misconduct in violation of Rule 3-4.3 (Misconduct and Minor Misconduct) and Rule 4-8.4(d) by filing a notice on behalf of a firm client without proper client authorization and unreasonably delayed her withdrawal for about one month. In one case, she attempted to undo a settlement offer sent by Silverberg in an effort to preserve attorney fees for herself, which resulted in delay of resolution of the matter and use of court resources to bring the case to a conclusion. She also filed notices of appearance in several cases without proper authority, which the Court found to be in violation of Rules 4-3.1 (meritorious claims and conclusions), 4-3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 4-8.4(c) (misrepresentation) and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
 
The Court also found that she had violated Rules 4-3.4(c) (“knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 4-8.4(c), and 4-8.4(d) by filing improper notices of unavailability in an effort to avoid being deposed in her litigation with the firm.
 
The referee recommended that Martinez receive a ten-day suspension and a public reprimand. However, after noting that Martinez’s misconduct involved several incidents of dishonesty and that she had delayed the proceedings by prolonging the civil litigation in the matter, the Court concluded that a suspension for ninety days was warranted.
 

---

Author Urges New Approach to Technological Competence
 
The legal profession needs a new, stricter approach to technological competence, argues Steven Embry, a lawyer and publisher of the blog Tech Law Crossroads, in an article published on Above the Law. 
 
He points to a recent action of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico which adopted a new Rule 1.19 titled “Technological Competence and Diligence.” It states, “Persons practicing law must acquire the necessary skills and maintain a reasonable knowledge of technological developments that may impact legal practice and notarial functions. This includes the duty to use technology diligently and with awareness of its benefits and risks in order to provide competent and effective legal representation or notarial services.”
 
Embry points out that the counterpart to this provision in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct is Comment 8 to RPC 1.1 which states: “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.”
 
Embry argues that this provision does not address the issue of technological competence with the strength of Puerto Rico’s new rule, as it is only a comment, and it uses “squishy” language like “should” that is not mandatory. He writes that the Puerto Rican text is “a stronger, more grounded rule. But its real power lies in what it implies: that tech competence isn’t just another checkbox — it’s now foundational to how we fulfill every ethical duty we have.”
 
But Embry suggests the real issue goes beyond mere technical competence. He argues ethical valuation of legal service must be rethought in a time when technology can crunch tasks, which used to take hours, into seconds. He contends that the traditional model of fees based solely on the time expended is no longer an accurate measure of the value of legal services. He writes, “It’s inevitable that we will see ethical complaints or even malpractice claims against lawyers who fail to use tech efficiently. We need to rewrite the rules to reflect a new reality: in the future, value won’t be exclusively measured in hours.”
 

---

A Sticky Situation: Federal Judge Rebukes Party for Chewing Gum Deposit
 
A litigant in a Florida Federal court got herself in a Big League jam by sticking her chewing gum to the bottom of the table where she sat. She got in Extra trouble when said ill-placed chicle adhered to the skirt of an Assistant U.S. Attorney occupying the same chair in a subsequent proceeding.
 
U.S. District Court Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II, was Alerted of the incident by court staff and tossed a Trident in the form of a Rule to Show Cause against Lorraine M. Padavan. She is the plaintiff in litigation against a woman she accused of taking control of her late husband’s assets after he and the plaintiff won $96 million in the New York Lottery. In response to the Rule, Ms. Padavan did not get Wrigley but admitted she was the perpetrator of the ill-fated deposit, apologizing to the Court and the gum-gummed Assistant U.S. Attorney.
 
Judge Wetherell did not react with Glee but entered an order “with the admonishment that what Plaintiff did by sticking her chewed gum under a courtroom table was inappropriate and unacceptable and had better not happen again.” He noted that such an order is outside the Orbit of what he ever thought he would do as a judge, but since the Plaintiff is compos Mentos and admitted her actions, an admonition would suffice. He added in a footnote, “If anything like this happens again, I will come up with sanctions that are commensurate with the schoolchild-nature of the violation—maybe sitting in the courtroom under the supervision of a court security officer handwriting ‘I will not stick my gum under a courtroom table again’ 100 times on notebook paper; an afternoon of helping the court custodial staff clean the courtroom and adjacent public areas; and/or a couple hours of scraping gum off the sidewalk in front of the courthouse.”

Ouch!
 

Attorney Well-Being

 

---

Explore the Disciplinary Board's Lawyer Well-Being Webpage

The Disciplinary Board's "Lawyer Well-Being" webpage connects Pennsylvania attorneys with pertinent resources, articles, events, and CLE opportunities to better understand and support their mental health and well-being. To access the Board’s “Lawyer Well-Being” page, visit padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/well-being.
 

 

---

We Want To Hear From You...

Resources