From the Chair
 

Last month, the Disciplinary Board released aggregate results of the demographic and succession planning data collected during the 2025-2026 Annual Attorney Registration process. This report offers insights into the Pennsylvania bar such as that nearly a quarter of PA attorneys are aged forty to forty-nine and that the gap between the number of men and women attorneys is slowly, but consistently, narrowing.
 
Readers can also see that approximately fifteen percent of PA attorneys have private clients but have not named an individual or law firm as his or her successor. The Board strongly feels that succession planning is integral to any legal practice and urges all attorneys to plan for the unexpected. If you do not currently have a successor to your practice, I encourage you to read the story generously shared by my colleague and former Board Vice-Chair Gretchen A. Mundorff in a 2022 issue of the PBA’s Pennsylvania Bar News. The future is always uncertain, but there are efforts that each of us can make to protect our practice and our clients.
 
And, finally, as the Thanksgiving season nears, we recall all that we have to be grateful for and proud of as members of the Commonwealth’s legal profession. On behalf of the Board, I wish a truly happy and meaningful Thanksgiving to you and your families.
 
With gratitude,
 
David S. Senoff
Board Chair

October 2025

Disability Inactive Sally A. Frick	Suspension Paul S. Peters, III
Disbarment Jin-Ho Cynn

October 2025

Disciplinary Board Releases 2025-2026 Annual Attorney Registration Demographic and Succession Planning Data

The Disciplinary Board has released the aggregate results of demographic and succession planning data collected during the 2025-2026 Annual Attorney Registration process. 

Read more about this year's demographic results and succession planning results on the Board's website.
 

---

If Retirement Is Around the Corner, What Should You Plan to Do with Your License?

Retirement tends to be a common end-of-year event. If you are considering an end to your law practice in Pennsylvania, what should you do about your license? One thing is for sure -- do not do nothing.

Your retirement from the practice of law only affects your license status if you effect a change. If you simply choose to not complete your annual registration or your CLE requirement, you will receive late penalties and ultimately be administratively suspended. Instead, pursue one of the following options:

• Continue maintaining active status. If you would like to maintain your ability to practice law, you should complete all requirements of an actively-licensed attorney (annual registration, CLE, etc.).
• Assume inactive status. While inactive status still requires annual registration, assuming such status automatically defers your CLE requirement. If you are unsure of your need to practice law in the future, consider maintaining inactive status. Please see the Board’s "Reinstatement" webpage for information about reinstatement from inactive status.
• Assume retired status. If you believe that your need to practice law in Pennsylvania has concluded, assuming retired status will end your annual requirements (annual registration, CLE, etc.). Please see the Board’s "Reinstatement" page for information about reinstatement from retired status.
• Assume emeritus status. After assuming retired status, an attorney may request to assume emeritus status. Emeritus status allows a retired attorney to provide pro bono services to eligible Legal Aid Organizations. For more information, please see the FAQs regarding emeritus status and the Board’s "Pro Bono" page.

Visit the Board’s "Forms" page to find appropriate forms to request the above status changes and, as always, make sure that your contact information is always up to date.

Supreme Court Modifies Conservatorship Rules
 
By Order dated October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted a set of amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement regarding the appointment of conservators for suspended, disabled, deceased, or otherwise absent attorneys.
 
Most of the amendments to Rules 321 through 328 simply add titles to describe the content of each section. Some substantive changes to the rules are incorporated into the amendments.
 
Rule 321(d) is amended to add language stating that the court appointing a conservator may adopt, as its findings of fact and statement of grounds, some or all of the allegations of the application. If so, the court must attach the application to the appointing order.
 
Rule 322(b), regarding publication of notice of the conservatorship to inactive and old cases, is amended to specify that the notice must, at a minimum, appear on one day in a newspaper of general circulation and the legal journal in the county in which the absent attorney maintained a principal office.
 
Rule 322(d), dealing with representation of clients and referral to other counsel, is amended. The conservator and members of the conservator’s firm remain prohibited from representing clients of the absent attorney, but the disqualification only applies until the termination of the conservatorship, not for three years. With the consent of the client, the conservator may now refer a client’s matter to a lawyer not disqualified under this section.
 
Amendments to Rule 325, regarding the duration of the conservatorship, now allow the conservator to apply for a nine-month extension of the conservatorship, up from six. Additional extensions of up to six months may also be granted. These extensions must be supported by findings of fact although the requirement of extraordinary circumstances is removed.
 
The amendments are effective in thirty days, or as of November 6, 2025.

Upcoming Public Proceedings

Black Screen Doesn’t Justify Blue Language: Lawyer Found in Contempt for Zoom Slur Against Judge
 
A Michigan lawyer found out the hard way that, just because your screen goes black in a Zoom session, it doesn’t mean you’re free to insult the judge.
 
Michigan lawyer Marshall Tauber was participating by Zoom in a court hearing before Judge Yasmine Poles on his client’s behalf via a Zoom linkup in his car. The hearing ended with the judge denying the relief sought by Tauber’s client. Tauber was recorded saying, “Thank you, your Honor …” followed seconds later by a sexist slur. He then logged off the conference call.
 
After ordering a transcript, Judge Poles found Tauber in direct contempt of court and fined him $7,500. She commented, “[The comment] does not fairly roll off my tongue as easily as it does [appellant’s] … That is, wow.”
 
On appeal, Tauber’s counsel argued that Tauber was technically inept and thought he was disconnected from the Zoom call when he turned off the engine of his car and the screen went black. She argued that the comment was not willful because Tauber thought no one else would hear his comment and it was expressed out of frustration. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected these arguments. The Court found that whatever Tauber’s intent, the statement was recorded on the transcript and was thus made in court, shocking the judge, court staff who heard it, and even Tauber’s client. The Court stated, “The willful disregard consists of a statement that tends to impair the court’s authority or impedes its functioning. … Demeaning or belittling the trial court, particularly in front of a client, erodes the public’s confidence in the judicial system.” The imposition of the fine was upheld.
 
Tauber has announced his intention to appeal the matter to the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing that he should have received a hearing on the contempt charge and that reasonable doubt exists as to whether his remark was directed at the Courts.
 
Perhaps the incident is also a cautionary tale about this wisdom of attending online hearings in one’s car.
 

---

California Supreme Court Rejects Proposal to Expunge Disciplinary Records
 
The Supreme Court of California, in a brief Order, has rejected a proposal of the California State Bar for a one-time expungement of discipline other than disbarment from a licensee's public record of discipline after eight years.
 
In a separate Order, the Court also rejected a State Bar proposal that would have significantly reduced the monetary sanctions imposed on disciplined attorneys. The proposal sought the Court’s approval to lower fines for disbarment from $5,000 to $1,000, and to reduce to zero the existing $2,500 sanction for an actual suspension and the $1,000 sanction for a resignation with charges pending. It did approve changes in the way disciplined attorneys could pay the sanctions.

A press release from the Supreme Court of California announced the decisions without elaborating on the Court’s reasoning.
 

---

ABA Formal Opinion Addresses Lawyer’s Duties When Clients Commit Crimes Against the Lawyer
 
The ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued Formal Opinion No. 515 which discusses when a lawyer has discretion to report a crime committed by a client against the lawyer or against someone associated with or related to the lawyer.
 
The Opinion begins by noting hypothetical situations where a client might commit a crime against the lawyer or someone connected to the lawyer. These include:

• Stealing from the lawyer by posing a fraudulent transaction in which a bad check is delivered to the lawyer;
• Seeking to retain the lawyer as part of a scam;
• Physically attacking the lawyer or staff while enraged at the law office; and
• Stealing property from the lawyer while in the law office.

The Opinion examines the lawyer’s duties of confidentiality under Rules 1.6 (confidentiality) and 1.18 (prospective clients). It expresses the view that a person who contacts a lawyer for the purpose of defrauding the lawyer has not entered into a good-faith client-attorney relationship and that the duty of confidentiality does not apply to such relationships.
 
In addition, the Committee notes that Rule 1.6(b) allows the lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary for certain purposes. Rule 1.6(b)(1) allows the lawyer to reveal information “to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary . . . to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.” This may allow the disclosure if the lawyer has reason to believe it may prevent future injury to the lawyer or another. Rule 1.6(b)(3) allows disclosures “to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services.” Rule 1.6(b)(5) permits disclosures “to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client,” although the Committee notes that this exception would not apply to the hypotheticals it listed.
 
Further, the Opinion expresses the belief that there may be an implicit exception to the confidentiality rule permitting disclosure to the extent reasonably necessary to report a crime against the lawyer, lawyer’s family, or others associated with the lawyer. It states, “Occasionally, lawyers may metaphorically take a bullet for the client, but they cannot reasonably be expected to take a bullet from the client and to keep quiet about it.” This implied exception also applies to situations where the lawyer is a witness to a client’s crime against someone associated with the lawyer or related to the lawyer.
 
The Committee concludes that “when a client commits a crime against a lawyer or the lawyer witnesses a crime against someone associated with the lawyer or related to the lawyer, the Rule implicitly permits the lawyer to disclose information about the client’s crime to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the relevant authorities to investigate and possibly prosecute the crime or to enable the lawyer to seek other services, remedy, or redress.”

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.
 

---

No, No, That’s My Name: Ex-Judge Denied Attempt to Change Name to “Judge”
 
If you lost your title, you can’t get it back by making it your name.
 
John Dehen served for fifteen years as a District Judge in Anoka County, Minnesota. He retired from the bench on October 10, 2025 after the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended him for multiple instances of misconduct. The Court found that he held a confidential hearing from a moving vehicle and improperly ordered an administrator to give his court reporter a raise despite a clear conflict of interest.
 
In August, Dehen filed a name change petition to change his legal name from “John Peter Dehen” to “Judge John Peter Dehen.”
 
Ramsey County Judge Leonardo Castro, who is based in St. Paul, was assigned to Dehen’s name change case. He would have no part in the name change and denied the petition.
 
Castro wrote that Dehen made his application “in bad faith and with intent to mislead.” He added, “To permit a former district court judge, who has been suspended for abusing his position of authority, to regain the title he was stripped of, would make the administration of justice a practical mockery…. By using the name ‘Judge,’ the Applicant would be holding himself out as a judge, a position he held for fifteen years, but no longer holds.”
 
Dehen’s story is the second in this issue about a legal official who got in trouble for participating in a remote hearing from a car. Word to the wise.

Attorney Well-Being

 

 

---

We Want To Hear From You...

Resources