Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio
48 A.3d 1231
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Respondent Cappuccio, a Pennsylvania attorney since 2002, was suspended temporarily in 2009 following his criminal convictions.
- He pled guilty to three counts of endangering the welfare of children (felonies), one count of criminal use of a communication facility, three counts of corruption of minors, and three counts of furnishing liquor to minors.
- The misconduct occurred while Cappuccio served as Bucks County Chief Deputy District Attorney and as a church youth group leader.
- The Board recommended a five-year suspension retroactive to July 30, 2009; the Court ultimately disbars Cappuccio retroactive to that date.
- The Hearing Committee found aggravating and mitigating factors; the Board and Court weighed public trust and positions of public office heavily.
- The Court held that disbarment is appropriate, given Cappuccio’s public position and the nature and duration of the misconduct, despite mitigating factors and rehabilitation efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disbarment is warranted | ODC urged disbarment as appropriate punishment. | Cappuccio argued five-year suspension sufficient due to remorse and rehabilitation. | Disbarment is appropriate. |
| Effect of public office on discipline | Public office aggravates misconduct and undermines public trust. | Public status should not elevate punishment beyond standard misconduct. | Public office is an aggravating factor justifying disbarment. |
| Applicability of Braun mitigation | Braun mitigation may limit consideration of psychological factors; substantial evidence supports harm | Respondent lacked Braun-compliant evidence; mitigation limited. | Disbarment upheld; Braun-based mitigation unavailable due to lack of diagnosis. |
| Role of rehabilitation and remorse | Remorse and treatment do not excuse egregious misconduct by a public official. | Remorse and ongoing treatment demonstrate rehabilitation and warrant lesser discipline. | Mitigating factors considered but insufficient to avoid disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- ODC v. Christie, 536 Pa. 394 (1994) (five-year suspension for serious misconduct; Braun-based mitigation discussed)
- ODC v. Pazuhanich, No. 15 DB 2005 (2005) (disbarment for public prosecutor; distinctions from Christie noted)
- ODC v. Eilberg, 441 A.2d 1193 (Pa. 1982) (public official status to be considered in discipline; five-year suspension)
- ODC v. Czmus, 889 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 2005) (presumption of reinstatement after five-year suspension; context for discipline)
- Lucarini, 472 A.2d 186 (Pa. 1983) (sanctions are aimed at fitness to practice and public protection; case-by-case)