The Pennsylvania Lawyer 12 September/October 2014

PUBLIC DISCIPLINE April 17 through June 18, 2014

CAMBRIA COUNTYThe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on June 16ordered Robert Paul Petyak suspended for twoyears, with the suspension stayed and Petyakplaced on a two-year probation subject to six conditions, as recommended by the DisciplinaryBoard, including supervision by a practice moni-tor and continued counseling by a “qualified men-tal health care professional, who is to direct andsupervise his activities.” According to the discipli-nary report, Petyak misappropriated entrustedfunds in four client matters in the period 2009through 2011. In reviewing what the reporttermed Petyak’s “present[ation of ] extensive evi-dence of mitigating circumstances, including … a mental infirmity that caused his misconduct,”the board concluded that while “the evidence isnot clear and convincing that [he] suffered from a psychiatric disorder,” he had “experienced apanoply of personal difficulties that impacted hislife, including his law practice as a sole practi-tioner.” According to the report, these problemsincluded physical illness and treatment, a divorceand related “custody issues,” and care of a parentwho had serious illnesses. In unanimously recom-mending probation over suspension, the boardfound these “challenging circumstances” to bemitigating factors along with Petyak’s 38 years inpractice with no prior discipline, his cooperationwith the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC)and his expressed remorse.

CUMBERLAND COUNTYThe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on May 23ordered Lee Eric Oesterling suspended on con-sent for one year and one day, as recommended by a three-member panel of the DisciplinaryBoard, with Justice Correale F. Stevens dissenting.According to the disciplinary report, the ODChad received “seven complaints alleging conductindicative of serious neglect” beginning in 2011.Of these, the report indicated that six “consistedof [his] accepting client fees, beginning to workon matters and then falling out of contact withclients” to the point at which he closed his officeand then “failed to provide clients with new con-tact information.” The report listed the seventhcomplaint as from a bankruptcy judge “who pro-vided documentation demonstrating that during

this same time period [Oesterling] incompetentlyhandled numerous bankruptcy representations,including inadequate filings and missed courtdates.” Among the aggravating circumstances, the report listed an informal admonition in 2007for violations “related to gross neglect of a client’sbankruptcy matter” and the ODC’s having “expe-rienced difficulty contacting and communicatingwith” Oesterling, including delays caused by hisfailure to respond “for an extended period oftime.” Among mitigating factors, the report took into account his remorse, admission of misconduct and “disclos[ure] that for some timehe has dealt with numerous health-related andpersonal obstacles [that] he acknowledges … have distracted him from his ability to adequatelyadvocate for, pursue the interests of and commu-nicate with his clients.”

LANCASTER COUNTYThe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on June 16ordered Kelly S. Ballentine suspended on consentfor one year, as recommended by a three-memberpanel of the Disciplinary Board, with Justice J.Michael Eakin not participating. According to the disciplinary report, Ballentine, a magisterialdistrict judge, received three summary citationsfrom police in her magisterial district for twoparking violations and an expired registration inNovember 2010. The report stated that Ballen-tine, having failed to pay fines and costs totaling$268.50, resulting in initiation of the summonsprocess in the computerized Magisterial DistrictJudicial System (MDJS) of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, then accessed theMDJS and dismissed the citations. According tothe report, in February 2012, the PennsylvaniaOffice of Attorney General, acting on a policecriminal complaint, charged Ballentine with conflict of interest, tampering with public recordsand obstructing the administration of governmen-tal function, resulting in the county presidentjudge placing her on indefinite administrativeleave from all magisterial duties on Feb. 13, 2012,and the Court of Judicial Discipline (CJD), actingon a petition from the Judicial Conduct Board,suspending Ballentine with pay on Feb. 22, 2012.In March 2013, following reduction of the tam-pering-with-public-records charge from a third-degree felony to a second-degree misdemeanor“because the Commonwealth did not believe [she]intended to defraud anyone, which is an elementof the felony charge,” and dropping of the other

DISCIPLINE

PAL-9.2014.P1-16_Layout 1 8/19/14 12:33 PM Page 12

13The Pennsylvania Lawyer September/October 2014

charges, the report stated that Ballentineplead guilty to the amended counts and wassentenced to pay $500 per count, havingalready paid the $268.50 for the summarycitations. According to the report, as a result of her criminal conviction, in June2013 the CJD retroactively suspendedBallentine without pay until May 31,2013, and placed her on supervised proba-tion until Dec. 31, 2014, and in October2013 the ODC filed a petition for disci-pline with the Disciplinary Board. Whilenoting that “Ballentine’s misconduct repre-sents a major lapse in judgment,” the re-port listed as mitigating circumstances herhaving no prior history of attorney disci-pline and her having “readily admitted hermisconduct …, expressed remorse and …taken responsibility for her actions, crimi-nally, judicially and now professionally.”

MONTGOMERY COUNTYThe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on April 30 ordered David M. Siegelsuspended for one year and one day, asunanimously recommended by the Disciplinary Board. According to the disciplinary report, from July 2010 throughMarch 2012, Siegel collected fees, then“failed to take any steps” in representingclients or to refund the unearned fees infour personal-bankruptcy cases and did notinform clients that he had closed his officeor that he had been placed on administra-tive suspension, effective April 26, 2012,for failure to complete continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. The reportalso noted that while on suspension Siegelremained counsel of record in four activecases in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, one ofwhich resulted in another instance of hiscolleting a fee and failing to represent theclient. Finding that the “illness and subse-quent death of his four-year-old son [in2010] … rendered [Siegel] unable to func-tion in a competent manner,” the reportconcluded “it is clear that he may not have fully recovered from the effects of his personal tragedy” and that the length of the suspension “will require [that he] petition for reinstatement and thus ensurethat he is fit and competent to return tothe practice of law.”

NORTHAMPTON COUNTYThe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania onMay 23 ordered Chrystyna M. Fenchensuspended on consent for one year and oneday, as recommended by a three-memberpanel of the Disciplinary Board. Accordingto the disciplinary report, Fenchen pleadguilty to two instances of driving under the influence (DUI) in 2013 and was sentenced to a minimum two-year stateprison term, with her prior history of DUIincluding one arrest in 1998 and two in2006, the latter arrests resulting in incar-ceration in county prison for 90 days anddiscipline including a private reprimandand two-years’ probation with a sobrietymonitor ordered Sept. 2, 2008, and com-pleted in October 2010. In support ofFenchen’s suspension, the panel concludedthat her previous “[p]rivate reprimand withprobation was obviously ineffective and her two subsequent DUI arrests in rapidsuccession raise questions about her fitnessthat need to be addressed at a reinstate-ment hearing prior to her being permittedto resume the practice of law.”

WASHINGTON COUNTYThe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania onMay 23 ordered Franklin Scott Swaneysuspended for three years, as recommendedby the Disciplinary Board. According tothe disciplinary report, Swaney was placedon temporary suspension on Sept. 28,2012, under a rule of disciplinary enforce-ment pertaining to attorneys convicted of a crime, in his case stemming from drug-related offenses in 2010. Also according tothe report, Swaney continued to representclients in 2011 while administratively suspended for noncompliance with CLErequirements and then abandoned theclients. Noting that in his testimony beforethe board Swaney “admitted that he had anaddiction to heroin which he is trying toovercome,” the report listed his attendanceat a rehabilitation facility in 2012 and ongoing, though “spotty,” attendance atmeetings of Narcotics Anonymous. Find-ing that the “only issue for [the board’s]consideration in the instant matter is theappropriate level of discipline,” the reportended with the following: “In light of

[Swaney’s] admissions about his ongoingstruggle with drug abuse and the palpableeffects it has had on his clients and theoverall administration of justice we con-clude that for the public’s protection andto maintain the integrity of the judicial system he should be suspended from thepractice of law for three years.”

TEMPORARY SUSPENSION — RULE 208(f)The following attorney was ordered placedon temporary suspension by the SupremeCourt of Pennsylvania under a rule of dis-ciplinary enforcement pertaining to attor-neys whose continued practice would causesubstantial public or private harm becauseof the misappropriation of funds or otheregregious conduct: Benjamin Hart Perkel,Philadelphia, on May 13.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSION — RULE 214The following attorneys were orderedplaced on temporary suspension by theSupreme Court of Pennsylvania under arule of disciplinary enforcement pertainingto attorneys convicted of a crime: KennethA. Kovaleski, Lackawanna County, onApril 24; Daniel Brian Hargrove, Al-legheny County, on April 30; Peter C. Ibe,Atlanta, Ga., on June 2; Robert C. Zan-icky, Luzerne County, on June 2.

DISBARMENT ON CONSENT —RULE 215The following attorneys were disbarred by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on consent under a rule of disciplinary enforcement pertaining to resignations byattorneys who are being investigated for allegations of misconduct: Vincent J.Fumo, Philadelphia, on April 24, retroac-tive to Jan. 26, 2010; Merrill JohnDruggs, Allegheny County, on May 16;Benjamin J. Viloski, Oak Island, N.C., onJune 2; Joseph James Saraco, MontgomeryCounty, on June 18; Laura ChristineSchmidt, Philadelphia, on June 18,retroactive to April 24, 2014, the date ofher temporary suspension under a rule ofdisciplinary enforcement pertaining to attorneys whose continued practice would

PAL-9.2014.P1-16_Layout 1 8/19/14 12:33 PM Page 13

The Pennsylvania Lawyer 14 September/October 2014

DISCIPLINE

cause substantial public or private harm because of the misappropriation of fundsor other egregious conduct.

TRANSFER TO DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS — RULE 301(e)The following attorneys were transferred to disability inactive status for an indefiniteperiod by the Supreme Court of Pennsylva-nia under a rule of disciplinary enforce-ment pertaining to attorneys declared to beincapacitated or severely mentally disabledwho, during the course of a disciplinaryproceeding, contend that they cannot prepare an adequate defense: Erik C.Grandell, Chester County, on April 24;Joseph P. Valentino, Mercer County, onJune 2.

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINEThe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania im-posed reciprocal discipline on the followingattorney: Raymond S. Nadel, Cherry Hill,N.J., suspended for one year, on May 13,for like discipline imposed by the SupremeCourt of the State of Delaware.

REINSTATEMENTSApril 17 through June 18, 2014

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, oncertification by the Disciplinary Board ofthe filing of a verified statement showingcompliance with all terms and conditionsof suspension, granted reinstatement to thefollowing attorney: Clayton William Boul-ware, Montgomery County, on April 24,from a six-month suspension ordered Sept.24, 2013. The court, on the recommendation ofthe Disciplinary Board, granted reinstate-ment to the following attorneys: AndrewKeith Fine, Delaware County, on May 23,from disbarment on consent ordered Oct.27, 1997; Michael K. Simon, Philadelphia,on June 16, from disbarment on consentordered Nov. 28, 2006. ⚖

NEW fromPBI P

Start your trial strategy by reviewing the

substantive instructions and begin your research

with the expert legal analysis outlined in the

Subcommittee Notes.

RPPBIOM NEW FR

ESSR

4th Edition with 20Civil Jur

ennsylvania Suggested Standard P

RPPBIOM NEW FR

4 Supplement14th Edition with 20y InstructionsCivil Jur

ennsylvania Suggested Standard

ESSR

4 Supplementy Instructions

ennsylvania Suggested Standard

ania SuggesPennsylvor decades belied upon fR

Subcommitt

NEW in the 20

y d Civil Jur ry Instandarrd Civil Jured Stania Suggesth the bench and bary boor decades b

estee NoSubcommitt

4 Supplement1NEW in the 20

tructionsy Ins, the th the bench and bar

The instructions are more understandable t-

es, has been retNoth substantivbo

porato incorT-ed and rewviere

The instructions are more understandable t

vised.ed and rewviees, has been ree instructions and Subcommittth substantiv

e the 2006 Amendments tporatviseded and re

s oro jurThe instructions are more understandable t

ee e instructions and Subcommitt

o the e the 2006 Amendments t

P B I . O R

7G | 8 0 0 . 9 3 2 . 4 6 3P B I . O R

PAL-9.2014.P1-16_Layout 1 8/19/14 12:33 PM Page 14