holding that an attorney violated Pa. R.P.C. 3.3(a)(1) because he “relied on rumors, innuendo and his own perceptions” instead of “conducting a reasonably diligent inquiry into the accuracy of his statements.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that an attorney violated Pa. R.P.C. 3.3(a)(1) because he “relied on rumors, innuendo and his own perceptions” instead of “conducting a reasonably diligent inquiry into the accuracy of his statements.”
- upholding sanctions against attorney whose allegations against judge were “either knowingly false or made without an objective reasonable belief that they were true" and constituted “misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”
- subjective approach unworkable because' lawyer “would always be in the position of defending an allegation, no matter how scurrilous, on the ground that he believéd it to be true”
- subjective approach unworkable because lawyer “would always be in the position of defending an allegation, no matter how scurrilous, on the ground that he believed it to be true”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The appropriate discipline, in my view, is disbarment.
Justices CASTILLE and NIGRO join this dissenting opinion.