# Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 8, 1998 · 552 Pa. 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766167

## Case

- **Full name:** OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. ANONYMOUS ATTORNEY A, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 8, 1998
- **Citations:** 552 Pa. 223; 714 A.2d 402; 1998 Pa. LEXIS 1335
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Saylor
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 17 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/9766167

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing elements of a prima facie violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c)
- discussing Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Geisler, 532 Pa. 56, 614 A.2d 1134 (1992)
- discussing Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Geisler, 614 A.2d 1134 (Pa. 1992)

## Opinion text

SAYLOR, Justice,
concurring and dissenting:
I join in the majority’s holding that the element of scienter is satisfied, and a prima facie violation of Rule 8.4(c) established, by evidence that the misrepresentation in question was made knowingly or with reckless ignorance of the truth or falsity of the representation.
On the record before us, however, I am unable to join in a remand to the Board for the purpose of considering the charges against Respondent in light of this standard. The Disciplinary Board “is of the opinion that [Respondent’s] misrepresentation was not intentional and was made upon a reasonable reliance on an established office policy ... .” Disciplinary Board Opinion at 21 (emphasis added). In my view, the Board’s conclusion that Respondent’s reliance on an office policy was reasonable necessarily precludes any finding that the same conduct was reckless to the extent that Respondent can be deemed to have knowingly made the misrepresentation. Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the Disciplinary Board dismissing the charges against Respondent.
CASTILLE, J., joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766167. Public record. Not legal advice.