Commonwealth v. Pilchesky
151 A.3d 1094
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Commonwealth charged Joseph W. Pilchesky with four counts of unauthorized practice of law under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2524(a) (filed Feb. 27, 2013). Pilchesky initially proceeded pro se; counsel later appointed.
- Pilchesky filed an omnibus pretrial motion including a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing the Commonwealth could not establish a prima facie case under the statute.
- At the Sept. 23, 2015 hearing, the trial court concluded conviction required proof both that a defendant practiced law without a license and that the defendant acted "in such a manner as to convey the impression that he is a practitioner of the law of any jurisdiction."
- The trial court granted habeas relief on Nov. 23, 2015 and certified the legal question for immediate appeal; the Commonwealth sought and obtained permission to appeal to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court reviewed statutory construction de novo and considered statutory text, rules of construction (including that penal statutes be strictly construed), and the legislative purpose of protecting the public from unlicensed practitioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2524(a) requires proof that an unlicensed person practiced law "in such a manner as to convey the impression that he is a practitioner" in order to convict for practicing law without a license | Commonwealth: statute is disjunctive; conviction for practicing law without a license does not require the additional "convey the impression" element | Pilchesky: conviction requires proof both unlicensed practice and that conduct conveyed the impression he was a practitioner | Held: The statute is disjunctive; the "convey the impression" phrase applies to specific sub-variants (holding out / use of titles) and is not an additional element for the simple act of practicing law without a license. Trial court erred; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (pretrial habeas corpus tests prima facie sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 111 A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. 2015) (plenary review of statutory construction)
- In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2016) (interpretation of disjunctive statutory language)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Specter v. Vignola, 285 A.2d 869 (Pa. 1971) (interpretation of "or" in statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Schley, 136 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2016) (statutory construction: give full meaning to all words)
- Commonwealth, Office of Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (avoidance of surplusage in statutory interpretation)
- Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 920 A.2d 162 (Pa. 2007) (legislative purpose and public interest considerations)
- Dauphin County Bar Ass’n v. Mazzacaro, 351 A.2d 229 (Pa. 1976) (constitutional authority to regulate practice of law; protection of public)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Marcone, 855 A.2d 654 (Pa. 2004) (practice-of-law determinations are case-specific)