# Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chung

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 1997 · 548 Pa. 108

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700332

## Case

- **Full name:** OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Daniel W. CHUNG, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 20, 1997
- **Citations:** 548 Pa. 108; 695 A.2d 405; 1997 Pa. LEXIS 990
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Castille
- **Judges:** Castille, Flaherty, Gappy, Newman, Nigro, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700332

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that given.the attorney’s many years of significant community service, genuine remorse, and strong character evidence, a five-year suspension was appropriate sanction

## Opinion text

CASTILLE, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority imposes a five-year retroactive suspension on the grounds that despite respondent’s illegal activities, he is extensively involved in the Korean community, has an excellent reputation (notwithstanding his pattern of illegal conduct) and shows remorse for his actions. Because I believe that respondent’s criminal activities demonstrate that he is not fit to practice law in this Commonwealth, I respectfully dissent as I believe disbarment is the only appropriate remedy.
*115 The majority focuses on respondent’s “benevolent” activities in the Korean community in reading its ruling. 1 However, the purposeful, fraudulent acts at issue occurring over approximately a five year period caused literally millions of dollars to be at risk and, in fact, caused the financial institutions who were fraudulently induced to make the loans to suffer losses in the amount of $106,000.00. 2 Further, although respondent alleges that he was trying to help members of the Korean community by securing loans and by rendering legal services at a low fee, 3 he failed to act responsibly as an attorney and conducted his professional duties in an illegal fashion violating several rules of professional conduct. This is not the kind of lawyering that any community should tolerate. This purposeful conduct demonstrates a callous disregard for our legal system and in my opinion renders the attorney unfit to practice law. 4
If this was an isolated incident, perhaps a more lenient sanction such as that now being imposed by the majority *116 would be warranted. However, in this case, respondent was charged with seventeen counts of making false statements to a federally insured financial institution and three counts of mail fraud. 5 See In re Anonymous No. 18 D.B. 78, 14 Pa. D. & C.3d 759 (1980) (this Court disbarring an attorney who was convicted of multiple counts of felony fraud unconnected to the practice of law, despite the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation of four-years retroactive suspension); In re Anonymous No. 73 D.B. 84, 37 Pa. D. & C.3d 98 (1985) (this Court disbarring an attorney who defrauded the government by submitting false claims). Had his acts not been discovered, his behavior would have continued benefiting him personally and professionally, and jeopardizing others financially. Accordingly, I must dissent as I believe that the five-year suspension is far too lenient. Instead, I believe that respondent should be disbarred because his conduct clearly demonstrates an unfitness to practice law.
. However, this Court has held that:
[A] Respondent's involvement in professional, civic and religious activities, while laudable, is not relevant to our basic inquiry, Respondent's fitness to practice law in this Commonwealth. Moreover, without denigrating Respondent’s extracurricular endeavors, we note that such activities are widely employed as a means of professional advancement.
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern, 515 Pa. 68, 83 , 526 A.2d 1180, 1187 (1987) (holding disbarment was proper where the attorney helped a client illegally pay a union official).
. In the criminal case against respondent, the District Court ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $106,000.00 to those financial institutions.
. Respondent charged his clients $300.00 for each fraudulent transaction, and personally profited in excess of $10,000.00 for his criminal conduct.
. This Court has held that:
In choosing an appropriate punishment, this is no doubt that dishonesty on the part of an attorney establishes his unfitness to continue practicing law. Truth is the cornerstone of the judicial system; a license to practice law requires allegiance and fidelity to truth.
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 493 Pa. 194, 200 , 425 A.2d 730, 733 (1981) (holding disbarment is an appropriate remedy for false swearing).
. Significantly, the Assistant United States Attorney explained, at respondent's sentencing hearing, that he could have produced over fifty additional loans in which respondent produced fraudulent documents. However, he chose not to produce the additional documents because "no jury in the world would have any question as to [respondent’s] guilt” after charging him with twenty illegal acts involving fraud.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700332. Public record. Not legal advice.