Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Levine

  • 582 Pa. 459
  • 872 A.2d 1138
  • 2005 Pa. LEXIS 901
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Apr 27, 2005
Status
Published
On the bench
Cappy, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Castille
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 43.4%

The opinion

872 A.2d 1138 (2005)

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner

v.

Barry Franklin LEVINE, Respondent.

No. 917 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 7, 2005.

Decided April 27, 2005.

Cory John Cirelli, Pittsburgh, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel, petitioner.

Philip B. Friedman, Erie, for Barry Franklin Levine, respondent.

Before: CAPPY, C.J., and NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated March 18, 2004, and following oral argument, it is hereby

ORDERED that Barry Franklin Levine be and he is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of five years, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Justice CASTILLE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Chief Justice CAPPY files a dissenting statement in which Justice SAYLOR joins.

Chief Justice CAPPY dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority's imposition of a suspension for a period of five years, and would disbar Respondent. Initially, I note that Respondent has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that his psychiatric disorder was a substantial causal factor in his misconduct pursuant to Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 520 Pa. 157 , 553 A.2d 894 (1989). The nature of his misconduct — affixing a judge's signature to an order approving the settlement of a claim and submitting the same to an insurance carrier — is of the most egregious nature. Respondent further attempted to conceal his misconduct by filing a motion with the court in which he falsely asserted that the trial judge had signed the order, but that the order had *1139 been inadvertently misplaced. Under these circumstances, where the very nature of the legal process has been compromised, the appropriate sanction is disbarment.

Justice SAYLOR joins this dissenting statement.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.