*1
Decided June Stretton, Chester, respondent. Samuel C. West Nichols, Counsel, Herron, M. Asst. Albert Chief John W. Disc. Paul Counsel-in-charge, Philadelphia, Burgoyne, J. *2 Counsel, Chester, Asst. petitioner. Disc. West for NIX, C.J., LARSEN, FLAHERTY, Before and zappala hutchinson, McDermott, and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
ORDER PER CURIAM. Reargument by Petition filed
Having reviewed the
for
Jr.,
filed
Opinion
and the
the Court
Casety,
Harold Edwin
13, 1985,
appears
it
revi-
in this matter on December
that
(9)
(12)
Opinion
pages
sions on
nine
twelve
can be made without
required, and
these corrections
shall
considered
reargument. Accordingly, the Petition
be
granted.
is
The
for Reconsideration and
as
Petition
Opin-
is
to file
attached corrected
Prothonotary
directed
Opinion
by
filed
the court
ion
to withdraw the
13, 1985,
OPINION PAPADAKOS, Justice. petitioned this (Casety) Jr. has Casety,
Harold. Edwin Disci- Facts Recommended Finding from the Court (Board) of this recom- Board Court pline Disciplinary of the of law.1 from mending Casety be disbarred briefly summarized. dispute The are not in can be facts pursuant exists Disciplinary Board of Enforcement, Pennsylvania Pa.R.D.E. Rules of attorneys subject investigate to our disci- conduct of is authorized hearings attorney’s hearing an pline. conducts into After a committee misconduct, disposition as to alleged recommendations it makes against attorney. The full Board then charges filed an us. required recommendation to and make its final to review same Rules 206 and 208. See Pa.R.D.E. Casety was admitted to the practice of law in practiced in the continuously mid-1979, Commonwealth until girlfriend when he and his moved to California. On Novem- girlfriend, ber he killed his shooting her five times in various parts body. of her admitted shooting his girlfriend and immediately turned himself over to the police. being charged
After with murder and use of a firearm during crime, the commission of a Casety pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter as defined California Penal (CPC) I,2 using Code subd. and to a firearm during § the commission of a felony meaning within the of CPC 12022.5, 1203.06(a)(l)(i).3 §§ plea, Casety
As a result of the was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four for years manslaughter, and two years using during a firearm the commission of a crime. (3V2) served almost three and one-half years of his in prison sentence being paroled. permitted before He was *3 return to Pennsylvania complete to his parole, which he completed 20, on successfully October After returning Pennsylvania, for the first Casety, time, notified the of Disciplinary Council his California 192, provides pertinent 2. The California Penal Code at subd. 1 § part: Manslaughter killing being is the unlawful of a human without malice. It is of kinds: three 1) Voluntary upon quarrel passion... a sudden or heat of — 12022.5, provides: 3. The California Penal Code at § felony attempt; Use in commission or additional of firearm of punishment; disposal of firearm Any person personally who uses a firearm in the commission or shall, attempted felony upon commission of a conviction of such felony attempted felony, or in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed felony attempted felony for the of which convicted, punished by he been be an additional term of has imprisonment prison years, in the state for two unless use of a firearm is an element of the offense of which he was convicted. 1203.06(a)(l)(i) provides: Section to, (a) granted Probation shall not be nor shall the execution or for, any following imposition suspended of the of sentence be crimes: (1) Any person during personally who used a firearm the com- attempted following of crimes: mission or commission (i) Murder. After voluntary manslaughter.4 Casety’s conviction Board, 6, 1984, suspended notification to the we Case- June Rule pursuant Pennsylvania from of law ty (Pa.R.D.E.) 214(d), fi- pending Enforcement of of as proceedings to be instituted disposition disciplinary nal the conviction. result of a its of the Board conducted investi- Hearing
A Committee where admitted on December gation notifying neglect years and his of four conviction proceeding, Casety At of his conviction. Board discipline as to nature only evidence presented that Casety’s found imposed. Hearing Committee be notify failure to the Board of and deliberate conviction suspension, July effective warranted five 1984, our interim order. 13, suspension the date of Exceptions heard to the Hear- of the full Board panel adopted The Board ing Committee’s recommendation. its but on review Hearing findings, based Committee’s involved, recom- facts and violations granted Casety’s We mended that be disbarred. findings from the Board’s argument for oral request recommendations. he be requires his conduct
Casety acknowledges that retro- a five-year contends that disciplined, but guilty plea, date of his would April active In profession. support legal and the justice serve both served his incarcera- notes that has argument, Casety incident, successfully has periods without parole tion drug which were dependencies prior reformed alcohol *4 girlfriend, his killing for his conduct responsible partially family to girlfriend’s the arrangements has made some form of restitution. make that Case- argues Counsel Disciplinary The Office of the his coupled with manslaughter, voluntary conviction ty’s Board, to the the conviction failure deliberate 1984, the Florida Bar of Casety also informed 4. On August responded by suspending of Florida Supreme Court conviction. The practice on November the of law from
181 be dis- requires misconduct which constitutes suspen- of our interim as of the date barred sion. 214(d) “convict- any attorney makes clear that
Pa.R.D.E.
upwards
punishable
of a crime
is
for one
ed
which
excluding
in this or
other
violations
any
jurisdiction,
jurisdic-
of another
or a similar law
Motor Vehicle Code
final
tion,”
pending the
is
to immediate
subject
Furthermore, once
disposition
disciplinary proceeding.
of a
the
crime,
required
attorney
of a
an
convicted
of the Board within
Secretary
fact of
(20)
sentencing.
of the date of
Pa.R.D.E.
twenty
days
214(a).
Hearing
the Board or its
proceedings before
Any
determining
limited to
the
under Rule
Committee
can
discipline
imposed,
to be
which
extent of the final
204(a).5
Rule
disciplines permitted by
consist of
of those
findings
of the Board’s
and recommended
Our review
novo,
we are free to evaluate for
discipline is de
Hearing
the
Com
presented
ourselves the evidence
before
Lucarini,
Disciplinary
mittee.
the
Counsel v.
Office of
(1983);
Disciplinary
504 Pa.
182
Campbell,
472,
The Board’s factual review surrounding his Casety’s it clear that actions record make total reprehensible murder and showed a girlfriend’s were At the time of the disrespect indifference and the law. of large amounts shooting, Casety already ingested had stimulant), these (a mixing tablets sleeping pills Bentyl wine, a having and was drugs gallon at least a half of with These had girlfriend. parties argument bitter with before, trying to apparently argued violently with by brandishing him staying into girlfriend “bluff” his Day, gun Thanksgiving a at her. On November and, working in a fit appear did not to be Casety's “bluffs” emptied five bullets into Patricia Bovino’s anger, of her body, causing death. as in conduct as well Casety’s intemperance,
seeWe lawyers, As reprehensibility. and moral we illegality at of conduct high professional bound to maintain standards 1-5 of Rules of all Ethical E.C. times. Consideration aspirational sets standard Responsibility Professional lawyer’s for a conduct: and he should temperate dignified, He should be
... conduct. illegal morally reprehensible from all refrain minor position even violations society, Because of tend lessen confidence lawyer may law re- to law exemplifies Obedience legal profession. respect for the law lawyers especially, To spect for law. platitude.” more than a should be parte Ex stated in As the United States Wall, 569, 576, 27 265, 274, 25 L.Ed. 107 U.S. S.Ct. (1882): most lawyer professions, classes and
Of all He is their sworn uphold bound to laws. sacredly world, him, repudiate all men in the servant; and for recreancy position to his argues the laws ... and override office____ fidelity It manifests a want system of lawful government which he has sworn to uphold preserve. *6 one who has sworn to uphold
Where law actively it, practice his breaches fitness is unquestionably de- stroyed. Campbell. Casety’s repudiation of rules society’s indulgence and in and drug alcohol and abuse homicidal were rejections conduct serious he oath undertook to uphold law. We cannot condone such conduct because destroys public it in legal profession. confidence An attorney who disrespect shows such for the law has forfeit- his privilege ed to be numbered as an attorney, and is not competent represent members of to appear before courts. revealed,
If that were all the record we would disbar Casety difficulty. with little Clearly, he was convicted of a (3) crime and DR thereby 1-102(A)(1), (6).6 violated In however, proceeding, this Casety’s subsequent conduct more than convinces us disbarment is the only proper discipline. having Once been convicted of a heinous crime California, in he honor was bound to such report fact to so, Pennsylvania. only Not did he fail to do he deliberately withheld this information continued to deceive the Ad- (AOPC) ministrative Pennsylvania Office of Courts that he in in practice by was active Pennsylvania executing filing the AOPC’s statements for filing years and 1983. He this accomplished by using deceit a false (a in Pennsylvania business address friend’s business ad- dress) required a friend having pay the annual funds registration fee out of maintained in Pennsyl- vania. 214(a)7
After became on April Pa.R.D.E. effective California, in still while he was incarcerated he (6) 1-102(A)(1), (3) 6. DR provide: (A) lawyer shall not: 1) Violate a Rule. 3) Engage illegal involving turpitude. in moral conduct 6) adversely Engage conduct reflects on his other fitness law. 214(a) provides: 7. Pa.R.D.E. report (20) days twenty
failed to conviction within ignore of the Board and continued to this obli- Secretary Surely, than until this gation more June lawyers they to all whether obligation applied Pennsylvania that he was prison or out of admits prison. were conviction, claims that duty but aware not deal with depressed and disoriented and could was having notify or of the effects of Board. misrepresenta- Casety’s condone deliberate cannot
We 214(a). of Pa.R.D.E. subsequent tions and his violation its action disciplinary not to While the Board chose base his conviction be- for his failure to against Casety in the charged this violation formally he was not cause follow that we cannot Discipline, *7 for it does not Petition determining in disci- conduct the Casety’s admitted consider any like conduct can be considered pline impose. to Such to attention to show Casety brought our other conduct he reformed himself. had he brings our attention that to respect, Casety
In this term and authorities, jail served his in to the turned himself drug incident, sought help for his has parole time without plans of restitution and has made dependencies, alcohol however, reveals, record also family. The his victim’s deliberately himself he reforming Casety was that while convicted, and devised that he had been the fact withheld in active to continue ability his misrepresent scheme to 1988, in D.R. violation of 1982 during 1-102(A)(4)8 1-103(A).9 (a) punishable by impris- attorney which is An convicted of a crime jurisdiction, upward or other for one or in this onment excluding Vehicle Code or a similar law of violations of the Motor jurisdiction, report fact of such conviction to the shall another days sentencing.
Secretary of the date of the Board within attorney report shall not be responsibility of to make such appeal of the is under clerk abated because conviction pursuant Counsel court has transmitted a certificate (b) of rule. to subdivision this 1-102(A)(4) provides that: 8. DR (A) lawyer shall not:
In weighing Casety’s post-conviction conduct, we are im- pressed by attempts prison serve out his sentence incident, without his apparently drug successful alcohol rehabilitation; that, meantime, but we find in the ignored an if equal, Court, bar, not higher, duty to the the public, his conviction and to advise the system that he was qualified not to practice law. This duty mandatory and is imposed lawyers because are they held highest standard of ethical and legal behavior. If lawyers convicted of crimes require discipline, which and then are permitted to hide that fact from the Courts and the public, there is no question that the of the integrity bar will be lowered and that the perceive will profession to brought disrepute. have been into Under the circumstances, Casety’s post-conviction conduct was far be- that expected conduct, low of a lawyer. coupled That for manslaughter, voluntary requires that we accept the recommendation discipline. is or- dered disbarred as of the date of the interim order, and is directed to pay costs of the investigation and prosecution this matter.
ZAPPALA, J., filed a dissenting opinion which HUTCHINSON, J., joined.
ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting.
Because the has majority placed great emphasis upon failure attorney conviction under Pa.R. *8 214(a) D.E. in reaching its conclusion that disbarment I appropriate, must dissent. I five-year would issue a suspension corresponding to the recommendation of the hearing minority committee and the of the Disci- members plinary suspension Board. The five-year would be made fraud, deceit, (4) Engage involving dishonesty, in conduct
misrepresentation. 1-103(A) provides: 9. DR lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of a violation of DR knowledge authority 1-102 shall such to a tribunal or other empowered investigate upon to or act such violation. 13,1984, the July the effective date of interim
retroactive Casety, of Harold Jr. this Court. appli- from the majority’s I must also dissent retroactive 214(a). majority acknowledges of Pa.R.D.E. cation 12, 1983. April not effective until the rule did become date prior Jr. sentenced to the effective Casety, was Harold specifically the rule states that Although of the rule. date twenty days reported conviction must be within imposing a interprets the rule as sentencing, majority make a continuing attorneys report. such obligation interpretation. If the majority’s not agree I do reporting requirement impose had intended rule been its prior sentenced attorney an who had been upon enactment, attorney stated that an who the rule would have shall the conviction previously sentenced had been Al- date of the rule. days of the effective twenty within may have been desir- an addition to rule though such I the circumstance. provide not able, the rule does this finding violated majority’s believe that rule unambiguous language contrary rule is itself.
HUTCHINSON, opinion. J., dissenting in this joins