Attorney Agrees to Suspension for Sexual Interaction with Client
A Philadelphia attorney agreed to a three-year period of suspension, with one year served followed by two years’ probation, based upon his emotional and sexual involvement with a client.
Brian Dooley Kent entered into a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent in which he admitted that he became involved with a client who had retained him and his firm to pursue a lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. Kent had a reputation as an advocate for victims of sexual abuse, which the client had experienced. The client lived in Australia. The Joint Petition details 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” over the possibility he would drop her as a client.
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 activity.
Subsequently, he attempted to reshape the relationship to a more professional than personal one, after which the attorney-client relationship deteriorated, and the client became upset and frustrated, complaining at one point that he “made [her] fall in love with [him].”
In January 2021, nearly two years after he was first retained by the client, he informed her by telephone that his firm would not file an action on her behalf, upon which she retained other counsel.
Kent acknowledged 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].
Aggravating factors included abuse of the trust of a vulnerable client and the fact that adverse publicity caused harm to the legal profession. Mitigating factors included lack of prior discipline, remorse, and admission of wrongdoing, character testimony, and a long list of civic involvements. He was also prepared to offer evidence of a diagnosis of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder arising from sexual abuse as a child, and his treatment for that disorder, which Disciplinary Counsel conceded could satisfy the requirements of
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun for mitigation on mental health grounds if proven.
After a review of the case law, the parties agreed that a suspension was warranted, given Kent’s reputation as an advocate for abuse victims and the special trust placed in him, but that due to the mitigating factors, a suspension of one year was appropriate, which would not require him to petition for reinstatement, was warranted. Accordingly, they agreed to a suspension for three years, with one year served and two years stayed with two years’ probation. A three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board made this recommendation to the Supreme Court which entered an order implementing this recommendation on May 23, 2025.
Lawyer Suspended for False Accusations Against Judge
A Philadelphia lawyer was suspended for five years by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania based on a report from the Disciplinary Board finding that he impugned the integrity and qualifications of a judge by making statements he knew to be false or in reckless disregard as to their truth and falsity and by failing to comply with court orders or appear for depositions and hearings.
The Disciplinary Board found that
Robert Joseph Silverberg engaged in a pattern of misconduct in two civil cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and a civil case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("USDCEDPA"). The cases arose out of a Complaint the City of Philadelphia filed in 2008 against Silverberg and his law firm, seeking payment of unpaid business privilege and wage taxes for the period 1992 through 2004. The City obtained a default judgment but did not proceed to execution. In 2017, Silverberg filed a Motion for Judgment of Non Pros. The motion was denied by the court, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Silverberg’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal.
The City took action to collect on the judgment, and Silverberg filed a Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Proceedings.
The day after filing this motion, Silverberg filed a suit against the City and various officials employed by the City in the USDCEDPA, alleging that the City’s resumption of collection activity in the 2008 tax case violated various provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and state law. This action was dismissed by the District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that ruling was upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In the meantime, the City learned that Silverberg had transferred assets to a company which then purchased the property in which Silverberg resided. The City filed a Complaint against Silverberg and the company alleging that Silverberg had violated the PA Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (“PUFTA”). The City served discovery documents, and Silverberg filed a motion for a protective order. Judge Joshua H. Roberts was assigned to hear the motions on discovery. Silverberg filed three more motions for protective orders, which were denied, and failed to comply with the Judge’s discovery orders.
After considerably more litigation, Silverberg filed a second lawsuit in the USDCEDPA against the City, various City employees, the William Penn Foundation (the “Foundation”), and the Foundation’s Chairperson, asserting claims under RICO, constitutional, and state tort claims against the named defendants, alleging that they had conspired to engage in unlawful tax collection activities in connection with the 2008 tax case and the PUFTA case for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating Silverberg into dropping his alleged plans to write a book about the corporate misdeeds.
Judge Roberts was then assigned to the 2008 tax case. In response, Silverberg sent a letter to several judges accusing Judge Roberts of bias and improper conduct. He then filed a motion to recuse Judge Roberts, making further allegations of dishonesty and misconduct against the judge. The next day, he filed an amended complaint in his Federal suit naming Judge Roberts as an additional defendant and repeating allegations of misconduct, dishonesty, and conspiracy against him. He continued to make these allegations in other pleadings until the City filed a Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after which Silverberg voluntarily dismissed the complaint.
Over the following months, Judge Roberts found Silverberg in contempt, and Silverberg continued to make escalating accusations against him. Silverberg failed to appear for multiple contempt hearings, leading to a bench warrant being issued against him. In addition, counsel for the City testified as to numerous false statements and evasive actions committed by Silverberg in the discovery process.
Silverberg did not attend either the pre-hearing conference nor the disciplinary hearing in his case but filed a post-hearing brief contending that there was a conspiracy against him and no legitimate basis for the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him. The Hearing Committee rejected these contentions and found violations of the charged Rules of Professional Conduct. Silverberg filed a Brief on Exceptions asserting numerous violations of due process and other constitutional rights and claiming that his answer to the Petition for Discipline should be treated as “equivalent to testimony.” The Disciplinary Board rejected all these arguments.
The Disciplinary Board found that Silverberg’s conduct violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct, including
RPC 3.1 (bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein without a good faith basis),
RPC 3.3(a)(1) (false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal),
RPC 3.4(a) (unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence),
RPC 8.2(a) (statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge), and
RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).
The Disciplinary Board found that Silverberg’s failure to appear for the disciplinary hearing and his lack of remorse were significant aggravating factors. The only mitigating factor found was Silverberg’s lack of prior discipline.
After weighing several prior cases of lawyers making false accusations against judges and other judicial officials, the Board concluded that a suspension for five years was the appropriate discipline and made this recommendation to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted this recommendation and suspended Silverberg for five years by
Order dated May 16, 2025.
Lawyer Publishes Book of Law-Related Haiku
A New York lawyer has turned her fascination with haiku, a seventeen-syllable form of poetry that originated into Japan, into a relief from the tedium of her job in insurance law. Stevi Siber-Sanderowitz
has self-published Briefly: Haikus for the Jaded Lawyer, a collection of the short poems aimed not at depicting nature, as Japanese haiku do, but at poking fun at life in the legal profession.
An example of her work:
Daydreamed at my desk.
Imagined office on fire.
Felt oddly relaxed.
The book is a follow-up to her previous opus, a compilation of insurance jokes entitled
Premium Punchlines: A Collection of Hilarious Insurance Humor.
Expressing one’s thoughts
in seventeen syllables
is hard for lawyers.
Haiku’s brevity
does not come naturally
to those schooled in law.
