From the Chair
 

With Annual Attorney Registration now well under way, I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight one license status that deserves particular attention: emeritus status. For lawyers who are retired from the active practice of law but remain willing to serve, emeritus status provides a pathway for them to continue their contributions to the profession and the public it exists to serve.
 
Established in 2018 through the adoption of Rule 403 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, the emeritus status program recognizes that retired attorneys in this Commonwealth carry decades of hard-earned judgment, and many of them want to keep putting it to work in their communities. In practical terms, the program permits retired attorneys on emeritus status to provide pro bono services through approved legal aid organizations. Currently, there are sixty emeritus status attorneys across Pennsylvania, and the gap they help close — between the demand for civil legal aid and what the bar can realistically supply on a pro bono basis — is neither small nor academic. 
 
With the Court’s gratitude, emeritus attorneys are subject to reduced Continuing Legal Education obligations, and they are covered by the professional liability insurance of the approved legal aid organization through which they serve. 
 
Retired attorneys may apply to the program at any time. But for those transferring to retired status through this year’s Annual Attorney Registration, this may be the right time to elect emeritus status. Each year since the program’s inception, the Board has been privileged to welcome additional lawyers into its ranks, and on behalf of my fellow Board Members, I offer our sincerest thanks to every attorney who has answered that call. 
 
Turning to registration more generally — last year, over 98% of required Pennsylvania attorneys satisfied their registration obligations before the second late fee was assessed on August 2^nd. That is a figure worth keeping. The July 1^st deadline is fast approaching, and I urge every Pennsylvania attorney to complete this year’s annual registration before it passes. The alternative — late payment penalties, or administrative suspension of one’s license and the privilege to practice law in this Commonwealth — is entirely avoidable. 
 
Best wishes for a safe and relaxing summer,
 
Shohin H. Vance
Board Chair

 

2026-2027 Registration Due July 1st
 

The 2026-2027 online registration is open in the Unified Judicial System Web Portal. Attorneys must register by July 1, 2026. Exemptions from the requirement of online filing are available for good cause but must be requested in writing.
 
Registration fees are $275 for active status and $100 for inactive status; there is no fee for attorneys assuming retired status. Attorneys may choose to pay online with a credit card or eCheck or to mail a check and printed voucher.
 
The first $200 late fee is assessed after July 16^th, and the second $200 late fee is assessed after August 1^st. These late payment penalties are imposed automatically and are not waivable by the staff or Board. An additional fee of $25 will be assessed in the event of any returned payment. Failure to complete registration by August 1^st may be deemed a request for transfer to administrative suspension under Pa. R.D.E. 219(f).
 
Payment Note: If you choose to "Pay Online" with a credit/debit card or eCheck, it is recommended to manually enter your information on the payment screens and do not allow your browser to auto-populate your information.
 
As always, please ensure that your contact information is up-to-date with the Board.

In cases of extreme financial hardship, a waiver of the annual fee may be granted. Eligible attorneys must be registering for active status and have an adjusted gross income less than or equal to the federal poverty guidelines for the applicable household size. Any waiver request form must be submitted by July 1, 2026.

 

---

May 2026

Disability Inactive Karl Foster Longenbach	Temporary Suspension Richard Lee King, Jr. Paolo Raines Shipman
Suspension Keila M. Gilbert William E. Vinsko, Jr.	Disbarment John S. Lopatto, III Aaron Spolin

May 2026

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is aided by select boards, committees, commissions, and councils consisting of more than 180 appointed volunteers – most, but not all, are lawyers and judges. The panels have a wide range of responsibilities and functions. Some make recommendations to the Court for amendments, revisions, or simplification of court procedural rules. Others regulate the practice of law, oversee continuing legal education for lawyers, and administer funds to assist individuals unable to pay for legal services. Still others advise on keeping the courts free of bias and discrimination and on long-range planning.
 
There are currently vacancies on the following court entities:

IOLTA Board – Applicants should be familiar with and supportive of civil legal aid and pro bono service to the low-income community. Once appointed, members are prohibited from serving as a director, trustee, officer, or in any other fiduciary role of a grantee or grant applicant.
 

---

 
If you would like to be considered to serve on a board, committee, advisory group, or related independent entity, email the application, cover letter, resume, and other pertinent information expressing your reasons of interest to SCApplications@pacourts.us.

More information may be found on the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania website.
 

Upcoming Public Proceedings

Disciplinary Board: Lawyer Can Be Disciplined for Complaint by Non-Client
 
By Order dated May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended Luzerne County lawyer William E. Vinsko, Jr. for a period of one year.
 
In one of the two cases raised in the disciplinary matter, Vinsko’s associate was retained by the son of a decedent to administer the estate. The associate obtained letters of administration. When she left Vinsko’s firm a year later, Vinsko assumed responsibility for administration of the estate. Approximately a year later, three siblings of the administrator consulted counsel who inquired with Vinsko about the status of the estate. Eventually, counsel for the siblings filed a Petition to Compel Accounting. The Court ordered Vinsko to file an accounting which he failed to do by the deadline set by the Court. Over the following year and a half, Vinsko failed to return communications, to meet deadlines, and to complete administration of the estate without sufficient cause. He finally distributed the proceeds of the estate in December 2022, more than three years after he took the case over.
 
The Petition for Discipline charged Vinsko with violations of RPC 1.3 [diligence], RPC 1.4(a)(4) [promptly comply with reasonable requests for information], and RPC 1.15(e) [promptly deliver property to a third person]. Vinsko argued that RPC 1.3 and 1.15(e) do not apply to his conduct because the complaint was filed by one of the aggrieved siblings, and not by his client. He contended that these rules fall within the body of rules governing client-lawyer relationships and that he could not be found in violation of them in the absence of a complaint by his client.
 
The Disciplinary Board rejected this contention, saying “Generally speaking, the complaint process is open to the public and designed to protect the public. ODC receives complaints from many sources, including clients, family members of clients, opposing parties, judges, and other lawyers, and has the power and duty under Pa.R.D.E. 207(b)(1) to investigate the complaints. There is no threshold requirement that the complainant must be the client before ODC fulfills its duty to investigate.” It found that, once Vinsko accepted the responsibility to administer the estate as a part of an attorney-client relationship, he owed the duties of diligence and prompt distribution of property to clients and third parties whose interests were at stake. The fact that the administrator was not the complaining party did not excuse his failure to comply with those duties. The Board examined the facts of the case and concluded that Vinsko had failed to handle the estate with diligence, failed to respond to inquiries as to the status, and delivered checks late, in some cases two months after they were written.
 
The Board also found that Vinsko had engaged in a similar pattern of failure to communicate in another case.
 
The Board took into account Vinsko’s prior record of three instances of disciplinary sanctions including two Public Reprimands. Concluding that his recidivist history indicated that a suspension was warranted, the Board recommended that Vinsko be suspended for one year. The Supreme Court agreed and imposed the recommended discipline.
 

---

Retired Lawyer Suspended for Mediation Activity
 
A retired lawyer agreed to a six-month suspension of her law license after admitting that she remained active in a mediation service which constituted the practice of law.
 
Keila M. Gilbert, of Bucks County, entered into a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent in which she admitted to the facts of the matter. She had transferred to inactive status in 2021 and elected retired status in 2024. Since 1996, she had been the founder and CEO of the Alpha Center for Divorce Mediation in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. She acknowledged that the Alpha Center employs attorneys, offers legal services, and engages in the business of law, specifically divorce mediation.
 
Although Gilbert stated that she had not worked with clients in several years, she was actively involved in the management and supervision of attorneys who were hired with the title “attorney mediator.” The Stipulation focused on the hiring of one attorney mediator, Sandra Zell, who was not on active status although she filed a petition for reinstatement to active status shortly after undertaking employment with the Alpha Center. Gilbert prepared the script for her to record a YouTube video to be posted on the agency’s website, in which she was identified as an Attorney-Mediator, and which did not reveal that she was not on active status. The Alpha Center website listed Zell as an “Attorney Mediator” under the section of “Divorce Attorneys.” Gilbert also authorized the publication of an article in a local newspaper reporting Zell’s joining the firm which identified her as an attorney and recounted various stages of her legal career. Zell met with clients without the supervision of a currently admitted attorney and was supervised by Gilbert before and after she met with clients. Gilbert advised Zell that she could use the title “Attorney” but not “Esq.” However, Gilbert used the title “Esq.” herself in her communications with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 
 
Gilbert also stated that, although she had not worked directly with clients in years, she continually monitored all professionals who work for Alpha Center and reviewed the marriage settlement agreements prepared by Alpha Center professionals even after she assumed inactive and later retired status. Gilbert also supervised the marketing team but failed to inform it of the limits on Zell’s ability to practice law.
 
Gilbert acknowledged that this conduct constituted the practice of law while not on active status. This violated several sections of Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct [responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervisory lawyers], Rule 5.5(b) [unauthorized practice of law], Rule 7.1 [false or misleading communication about the lawyer's services], and Rule 8.4(c) [conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation]. She also admitted to violation of several provisions of Rule 217 of the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, governing the conduct of formerly admitted attorneys. Several mitigating circumstances were present. Through her counsel, she and Disciplinary Counsel recommended a suspension for six months. A three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board approved the Joint Petition, and the Supreme Court imposed the recommended discipline by order dated May 11, 2026.
 

---

ABA Opinion: What Should Engagement Agreements Say About Withdrawal?
 
The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued a Formal Opinion discussing provisions in client engagement agreements that address circumstances under which a lawyer may withdraw from representation of a client.
 
Formal Opinion 523, issued May 20, 2026, is entitled “Engagement Agreements Allowing a Lawyer to Withdraw When the Client Fails Substantially to Fulfill an Obligation Regarding the Lawyer’s Services.” It notes that the most common reason lawyers seek to withdraw from a client-attorney relationship is failure by the client to honor a financial agreement, usually for nonpayment of the lawyer’s fees. The opinion discusses other circumstances that may lead to a lawyer’s decision to withdraw.
 
The Opinion discusses Rule 1.16(b)(5) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct which permits a lawyer to withdraw from a representation, or to seek the tribunal’s permission to do so, when “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.” The Opinion notes that defining such essential conditions should be considered in drafting the client engagement document.
 
Some such conditions are implicit in the relationship, such as the obligation to cooperate with the representation, to communicate with the lawyer, to provide information truthfully and to provide or to execute documents that are necessary for the lawyer to conduct the representation. Others may not be implicit. For example, the agreement may address such issues as audio or video recordings of communications between the lawyer and the client or discussion of the case or the lawyer or the representation on social media during the course of the representation. However, the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law or public policy may forbid certain contractual terms such as barring the client from pursuing disciplinary action against the lawyer or ceding the client’s ultimate authority to settle to the lawyer. The lawyer may not withdraw based on failure to comply with an obligation not related to the representation such as payment of a preexisting debt or based on a trivial failure to comply with obligations such as lateness for appointments. It is also clear that the lawyer must give the client warning of the lawyer’s inclination to withdraw and an opportunity to correct the failures to comply with the terms of the agreement.
 
The client, at least in the civil context, has the right to terminate an attorney-client relationship at any time for any or no reason although the client may remain responsible to pay for the lawyer’s services.
 
The lawyer does not have such unfettered discretion. Rule 1.16 and the engagement agreement define the terms on which the lawyer may end the relationship, and the lawyer is not permitted to withdraw without cause on other grounds such as because the client rejects a settlement offer or transactional agreement that the lawyer recommends or to accept a more lucrative engagement without regard to whether the withdrawal would have a material adverse effect on the client’s interests.
 
The Opinion states, “The engagement agreement may memorialize additional obligations of the client, both obligations that are otherwise implicit such as the client’s truthful cooperation with the representation, and further obligations insofar as they are not forbidden by the Rules, other law (including court rules), or public policy . . . Further, the lawyer’s engagement agreement may put the client on notice of permissible grounds for withdrawal.” However, the engagement agreement must not expand on the grounds set forth in Rule 1.16 or mislead the client regarding the legitimate grounds or the process for withdrawal.
 
Note that this ABA Formal Opinion is advisory only. It is not binding on the Disciplinary Board, the PA Supreme Court, or any other Court.
 

---

Down, Boy: Woman Injured by Shotgun Fired by Dog
 
Last month, we reported on an incident where vandalism attributed to a bear turned out to be a human in disguise. This month brings us a story of a shooting by a perpetrator – not quite human.
 
Police in Scottsdale, Arizona were called to the site of a convenience store on reports that a woman had been shot with a BB gun. On arrival, they learned that she had actually been struck by a shotgun pellet fired by a dog.
 
The police found a truck with an attached camper with damage to the passenger-side door consistent with a shotgun blast. The owner of the truck was not in the vehicle at the time. He had left his dog in the truck and also a loaded shotgun on the seat. The dog moved to the side of the seat where the shotgun was located and accidentally (we assume) triggered the blast which damaged the door and struck a woman stopped at a traffic light. She was taken to a hospital with injuries to her arm that were not life-threatening. 
 
Police issued a statement reminding the public that it is illegal to travel with a loaded shotgun in the vehicle. An investigation is underway. No charges have been brought against the dog. The owner, however, may not be so lucky.

Attorney Well-Being

Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Hosts Twenty-First Annual Law School Deans Conference
 
On Thursday, May 28^th, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania (LCL) hosted its annual deans conference at Widener University Commonwealth Law School in Harrisburg. This year marked the event’s twenty-first occurrence. In addition to deans from law schools across the state and surrounding region, representatives from the PA Board of Law Examiners, the Disciplinary Board, and PA Bar Association were in attendance. The conference facilitates open dialogue between law school administrators in and around the Commonwealth and organizations supporting the legal profession.
 
Law students face immense challenges to their mental health and overall well-being. In addition to curricular requirements, application credentials continue to rise, the financial aid and borrowing landscape is changing with students continuing to face predatory loan structures, and the prevalence of AI presents both opportunities and great obstacles in the classroom and beyond. Prior mental health conditions also are often exacerbated by the demands of law school.
 
However, despite the rise in reported mental health and substance use issues, in recent years, law students have become more likely to seek assistance as social stigma surrounding these issues seems to decline.
 
Retreat attendees discussed well-being needs of students and gaps in current resources, continuity of mental health care, generational considerations in discussions of well-being, the importance of soft skills in the legal profession, and other issues most relevant to the current law students.
 
LCL offers a wide variety of excellent resources tailored to the unique experiences of law students, including virtual student hours, referral to a qualified healthcare provider for a free and confidential consultation and diagnosis, development of a personalized treatment plan, peer support from a recovering law student or lawyer who has faced and overcome similar mental health or substance use challenges, and a wide variety of pertinent literature and other media.
 
The Disciplinary Board is deeply grateful to Widener University Commonwealth Law School and to LCL for organizing this yearly opportunity to meet in-person with its law school partners, furthering our shared goals. Board staff members are honored to participate in these important conversations with colleagues across PA and the surrounding region.
 

---

Strong on the Outside: High Lawyer Performance May Mask Distress
 
Most people know the signs of a lawyer who is breaking down professionally – missed deadlines, calls not returned, interpersonal problems, and disengagement, among others. If a lawyer is performing at a high level – competent, hardworking, responsive and composed – most people would assume that lawyer is well adjusted and doing well psychologically.
 
But that is not always the case, according to Jennifer Kupferman, a former Biglaw attorney turned psychotherapist who works with many lawyers in New York.
 
In an article on Law.com entitled “When High Performance Masks Distress,” Kupferman discusses lawyers who may appear to be functioning at a high level of competence yet are paying a psychic toll under the surface. She notes that such lawyers often operate at a high level of alertness and vigilance from the time they wake up until the end of their day. They scan everything, anticipating what could go wrong. By the end of the day, they are depleted and may lack an off-switch. The body maintains a persistent, low-level state of activation that becomes so familiar that it no longer registers as stress.
 
In time, this may result in symptoms that do not affect performance such as difficulty focusing on tasks, irritability, trouble sleeping even when exhausted, a growing sense of dread anticipating workdays, and diminished satisfaction even after objectively successful outcomes.
 
Kupferman observes that in working with lawyers experiencing these signs, the goal is not to change those characteristics which make the lawyer successful. Rather, she seeks to help lawyers see the unconscious drives that keep them on duty all the time and to recognize that diligence should serve a purpose rather than being an ambient state of mind. They need to develop the ability to shift out of problem-solving mode when it is not needed and to recognize internal cues such as fatigue, tension, and overwhelm not as obstacles but as information about what is going on inside. When the nervous system is not operating in a constant state of low-grade threat, cognitive flexibility improves, attention is more sustainable, interactions become more deliberate and less reactive, and decision-making becomes a matter of judgment rather than urgency. The professional feels a sense of choice in how one engages, rather than a continuous sense of propulsion.
 
Kupferman states, “With greater awareness, it becomes possible to engage that vigilance more selectively, to allow it to serve rather than dominate, and to sustain both performance and wellbeing over time.”
 

 

---

We Want To Hear From You...

Resources