Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Casety

  • 511 Pa. 177
  • 512 A.2d 607
  • 1986 Pa. LEXIS 824
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jun 30, 1986
Status
Published
Author
Zappala
On the bench
Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Papadakos, Zappala, Hutchinson
Cited by
26 cases

“even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession”

How later courts described this case

  • “even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession”
  • lawyers are “bound to maintain high standards of professional conduct at all times”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ZAPPALA, Justice,

dissenting.

Because the majority has placed great emphasis upon the failure of the attorney to report his conviction under Pa.R. D.E. 214(a) in reaching its conclusion that disbarment is appropriate, I must dissent. I would issue a five-year suspension corresponding to the recommendation of the hearing committee and the minority members of the Disciplinary Board. The five-year suspension would be made *186 retroactive to July 13,1984, the effective date of the interim suspension of Harold Casety, Jr. by this Court.

I must also dissent from the majority’s retroactive application of Pa.R.D.E. 214(a). The majority acknowledges that the rule did not become effective until April 12, 1983. Harold Casety, Jr. was sentenced prior to the effective date of the rule. Although the rule specifically states that the conviction must be reported within twenty days of the date of sentencing, the majority interprets the rule as imposing a continuing obligation on attorneys to make such a report.

I do not agree with the majority’s interpretation. If the rule had been intended to impose a reporting requirement upon an attorney who had been sentenced prior to its enactment, the rule would have stated that an attorney who had been sentenced previously shall report the conviction within twenty days of the effective date of the rule. Although such an addition to the rule may have been desirable, the rule does not provide for the circumstance. I believe that the majority’s finding that Casety violated this rule is contrary to the unambiguous language of the rule itself.

HUTCHINSON, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

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.