134 A.3d 1027
Pa.2016Background
- Brian J. Preski served as Chief of Staff to PA House Leader John Perzel (2000–2007) and supervised hundreds of state employees and substantial budgets.
- Preski conspired with Perzel and others to use RIT (Republican Information and Technology Office) staff, public funds, and vendors to develop voter-targeting software ("Blue Card", "The Edge") for partisan campaigns; public funds paid vendors (GCR, Aristotle, Weiss) totaling millions.
- Preski and colleagues formed consulting entities (Greystone, SKP) to attempt personal profit from taxpayer-funded technology; Preski pressured staff to route campaign business to those firms.
- After a grand jury investigation, Preski pled guilty (2011) to conflicts of interest, thefts, theft of services, and criminal conspiracy; sentenced to prison, probation, fine, and restitution; Court suspended him and referred disciplinary proceedings to the Disciplinary Board.
- A Hearing Committee and the Disciplinary Board found multiple aggravating factors (leadership role, directing staff, personal profit motive, failure to accept responsibility, public-trust position) and recommended disbarment; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed and ordered disbarment (retroactive), rejecting Preski’s arguments for a lesser sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ODC) | Defendant's Argument (Preski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disbarment is warranted for Preski's criminal conduct and misuse of public resources | Disbarment is appropriate because convictions and extensive public-corruption misconduct show fundamental dishonesty and threaten public trust | Lesser sanction (e.g., suspension) suffices given some mitigating evidence and his public service | Disbarment ordered; misconduct was egregious and similar to prior disbarment precedent |
| Whether Preski accepted responsibility for his crimes (mitigation) | He has not accepted full responsibility; testimony showed minimization and deflection | He conceded being "part and parcel" of the scheme and claimed some admissions of fault | Court found Preski did not adequately accept responsibility; minimization undermined mitigation weight |
| Whether Preski’s misconduct brought disrepute on the bar | Public, high-profile corruption by an attorney/public official harms the profession and public confidence | Media portrayed him mainly as a political aide, not linking misconduct to his lawyer status, so bar harm is limited | Court held his prominent legal/public roles meant misconduct did tarnish the bar and democracy; disbarment needed to protect integrity |
| Whether precedent (Foreman) requiring disbarment is controlling | Foreman supports disbarment for comparable misuse of public employees/resources for partisan purposes | Preski argued factual differences and asserted better mitigating evidence than Foreman | Court found Foreman analogous and Preski’s mitigation weaker; Foreman guided decision to disbar |
Key Cases Cited
- ODC v. Chung, 695 A.2d 405 (Pa. 1997) (disciplinary review is de novo though Board recommendations are given deference)
- ODC v. Cappuccio, 48 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2012) (burden on ODC to prove misconduct by preponderance; consider totality of facts and aggravating/mitigating factors)
- ODC v. Lucarini, 472 A.2d 186 (Pa. 1983) (discipline should be consistent for similar misconduct)
- ODC v. Costigan, 584 A.2d 296 (Pa. 1990) (criminal conviction alone is a basis for discipline)
- ODC v. Jackson, 637 A.2d 615 (Pa. 1994) (disbarment reserved for most egregious violations)
- ODC v. Christie, 639 A.2d 782 (Pa. 1994) (discipline protects public and maintains integrity of legal system)
- ODC v. Czmus, 889 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 2005) (some conduct is too egregious and requires disbarment to protect profession)