*1 108
CASTILLE, J., participate did not in the consideration or decision case. A.2d 405 COUNSEL, Petitioner,
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY v. CHUNG, Respondent. Daniel W.
Supreme of Pennsylvania. Court
Argued Oct. May Decided *2 Audubon, Jr., Disciplinary for Counsel. Ciampoli, Harold E. Stretton, Respondent. for C. Samuel ZAPPALA, GAPPY, FLAHERTY, C.J., and Before NEWMAN, CASTILLE, JJ. and NIGRO THE OPINION OF COURT NEWMAN, Justice. to the Chung has filed exceptions Daniel W.
Respondent his report recommending disbarment. Board’s Disciplinary 24, 1994, suspended temporarily August this Court On July guilty his from based on Respondent making on counts of false statements plea in federal court five of insured financial institution1. Because federally to a convictions, sentences imposed concurrent the District Court count ordered day of months and one for each and twelve $106,000.00, of restitution in the amount Respondent pay $10,250.00. totalling with a fine assessment along 17, 1994, committed the February the District Court On Center, where County to the Bucks Rehabilitation 13, 1995. custody January until released remained for Disci- Disciplinary Counsel filed a Petition The Office 10,1995, a member Respondent. April On three pline against petition. Respon- on the hearing hearing committee held a stipulated Counsel dent the Office facts, including following: number of dropped of false government twelve additional counts 1. The federal counts of mail fraud. statements and three lio Facts
Stipulation of 30, 1993, 4. On June Attorney’s the United States Office charged Respondent making with seventeen counts of federally false statements to a insured financial institu- tion, in § violation 18 U.S.C. and three counts of fraud, § mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § The counts based on 18 U.S.C. arose from
Respondent’s submission false tax returns and false financial information to Ukrainian Savings Loan (“Ukrainian”) Association between March 1986 Sep- tember 1988 to obtain seventeen loans clients. § The counts based on 18 U.S.C. 1341 involved the
submission of false financial information on three occa- sions January between 1991 to Traveler’s (later Services, Mortgage Inc. known G.E. Capital as Services, Inc., Mortgage Capital”) “G.E. obtain to loans Respondent for clients. plead did not guilty to the 18 § 134.1counts. U.S.C.
9. The basis of the to charges criminal which Respondent
pleaded was guilty his assistance as an in accountant his clients helping obtain loans from Ukrainian. Respondent, assistance, in the course of his knowingly prepared fictitious tax returns of his clients to submit to the Savings Loan an effort to deceive the loan company.
17. Although Respondent did plead not to guilty [counts
related to the loss incurred by Capital], pur- G.E. for poses sentencing agreed he that he aided by fraud providing false to documentation the G.E. Capital loan officer. that the government ... with agreed Respondent assessing restitution was for purposes
relevant loss $30,000.00 by loss $76,000.00 Ukrainian suffered Capital.... G.E. $10,081.00in the government Respondent forfeited obtaining all fees that received information. in the criminal listed
loans from Ukrainian 10,1995, 1-3. Fact, at April Stipulation of although Respondent’s noted that committee hearing The dishonesty, his motivation was fraud, deceit and acts involved community. of the Korean for other members secure loans loans inap- clients to obtain helped his Although Respondent services, he did not a for his charged fee propriately, The hearing to his clients. granted from the loans benefit who clients Respondent’s that most recognized committee timely in a manner. them back paying were secured loans actions, hearing Respondent’s not excuse While this does it demonstrates determined that committee and loan associa- savings defraud the mind was state of tion. violated committee concluded hearing
The (RPC) and Disci- Conduct of Professional following Rules (DR): Rules plinary 4.1(a) knowingly mak- lawyer (prohibiting
1. RPC to third while person material fact ing a statement of false client); representing *4 4.1(b) knowingly failing lawyer a (prohibiting
2. RPC disclosure person a third when a material fact to to disclose criminal or aiding abetting or a to avoid necessary is client, by prohibited is a unless disclosure by fraudulent act 1.6); Rule 8.4(b) (it lawyer to misconduct for professional is
3. RPC lawyer’s the adversely on act that reflects commit criminal in other lawyer as a or fitness honesty, trustworthiness respects); 8.4(c) (it
4. RPC is misconduct for a to lawyer engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice); DRl~102(a)(3) (a
5. lawyer shall in engage illegal involving conduct turpitude); moral DRl-102(a)(4) (a 6. lawyer shall not engage in conduct fraud, involving deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation); (a DRl-102(a)(6) 7. lawyer shall not engage conduct law); adversely reflects on his fitness DR7-102(a)(5) (in representation client, a lawyer knowingly shall not ... make a false statement law or fact); and DR7-102(a)(3) ( a lawyer shall not or knowingly conceal reveal).
fail to disclose that he is required by which law Considering evidence, all including the undisputed testimony that Respondent is a man of character good standing in the community, the Committee recommended a three-year 24,1994. suspension beginning August of Disciplinary
The Office Counsel filed exceptions, and the argument 21,1995. Board held oral September By 8, report February dated the Board recommended that Respondent August 24, be disbarred retroactive petition Court, filed a for review with this and we granted argument. oral
In attorney discipline matters we exercise de novo
review,
we
are not
findings
bound
and recommen
hearing
Board,
dations
or
committee
though
give
we
them substantial deference.
Disciplinary Counsel v.
Office of
Raiford,
(1997).
546 Pa.
Here, the Board recognized Respondent present impressive ed character witnesses and that he demonstrated Nevertheless, remorse for his actions. took the Board position that amount of “[n]o character testimony will over come the that Respondent fact knowingly defrauded a finan cial institution his effort to assist his clients.” Report Board, Recommendation of the February 1996 at 16. The
113 on this of disbarment its recommendation Board also based Holston, Counsel v. decision Court’s of Office (1993). Holston, attorney In an 78, 1054 Pa. 619 A.2d 533 decree, the judge and when a name a divorce signed judge’s the prepared the who identity person him the of later asked meeting not know. After with order, that he did he answered responsi- he was counsel, informed the court that attorney attorney noted that the judge’s name. forging for We ble committing forgery lying and dishonestly by acted court, disregard demonstrates a callous that his “conduct judicial and calls for the process of the very integrity for the at 1056. In the Id. at 619 A.2d most severe sanction.” matter, Respondent’s determined that the the Board instant it in- than because egregious more Holston’s behavior was rather than an isolated of conduct volved course dishonest Holston, concluded that dishon- the Board incident. Based esty requires disbarment. certainly does not condone acts dishon- this Court
While
se
adopt
per
requiring
rule
esty, we have declined
In
Disci-
specific
acts misconduct.
disbarment
Office of
Lucarini,
(1983),
Our in 1980 a member of the bar public accountant certified lawyer, Respondent had a in 1988. As an accountant Philadelphia’s to members of significant history of service organizations He in the community. non-profit aided Korean community services, Asian free by providing held *6 regarding accounting legal seminars issues and served as a mediator between Korean churches and local businesses. At the the disciplinary hearing, testified that the reason he inflated his on clients’ incomes loan applications was to community assist members of the Korean to obtain loans. He admitted his misconduct during disciplinary hearing the and showed remorse for his actions. He also presented testimony eight witnesses who testified to his reputation as a peaceful law-abiding citizen and person. as truthful [disciplinary] system
“The is designed to whether determine misconduct has occurred and to what extent that misconduct law.” Lucarini at indicates unfitness to 472 A.2d end, at 190. To that we have only examined not the nature misconduct, the Respondent’s which in this is case most serious, testimony but also the of the Respondent and others his regarding extensive in community, involvement excel- reputation lent and remorse for his considering actions. After totality facts, of the eight years mindful that have passed misdeed, since last we disagree with the Board’s recommendation of disbarment. on Based our inde- pendent balancing of the nature of the conviction and the mitigating presented, evidence we impose five-year suspen- 24,1994. sion to August retroactive It is further ordered that he comply shall with the provisions Pa.R.D.E. 217 and that costs, he shall if pay any, to the to pursuant board Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
CASTILLE, J., dissenting files a opinion. Justice,
CASTILLE, dissenting. The majority imposes five-year suspension retroactive on grounds activities, despite respondent’s illegal he is extensively community, involved in the Korean has an excel- conduct) reputation lent (notwithstanding his pattern illegal and shows remorse for his actions. Because I believe that respondent’s criminal activities demonstrate that he is not fit to practice Commonwealth, law in this I respectfully dissent as I believe disbarment only remedy. is the appropriate activities “benevolent” respondent’s majority The focuses However, the reading ruling.1 in its community in Korean approxi over occurring issue acts at fraudulent purposeful, year period millions of dollars to literally caused mately a five who fact, the financial institutions and, in caused at be risk losses loans to suffer induced make the fraudulently were Further, $106,000.00.2 although respondent the amount of the Korean help members trying he was alleges that services by rendering legal loans and by securing community attorney and fee,3 responsibly as an failed act a low at violating illegal an fashion duties professional conducted This kind of conduct. is rules of several purpose tolerate. This any community should lawyering *7 disregard legal our callous ful conduct demonstrates attorney unfit my renders opinion system law.4 practice incident, a more lenient perhaps
If isolated this was an majority being by the imposed that now such as sanction However, held that: this Court has 1. professional, religious Respondent's civic and involvement [A] laudable, activities, inquiry, Respon- is not relevant to our basic while Moreover, practice law in this Commonwealth. fitness to dent's endeavors, we note denigrating extracurricular without widely employed as a means of activities are that such advancement. 1180, Stern, 83, 68, 515 Pa. 526 A.2d Counsel v.
Office of (1987) attorney proper helped (holding was where the disbarment 1187 official). illegally pay a union a client respondent, against the District Court ordered In criminal case $106,000.00 financial pay the amount of to those him to restitution in institutions. Respondent charged $300.00 for each fraudulent transac- his clients $10,000.00 tion, personally profited for his criminal in excess of conduct. This Court has held that: punishment, is choosing appropriate no doubt that dishon- In an esty part attorney his unfitness to continue of an establishes judicial system; practicing is the cornerstone law. Truth practice requires allegiance fidelity to truth. license to law 194, 200, Grigsby, 425 493 A.2d Disciplinary Counsel v. Pa. Office of (1981) remedy appropriate for false (holding disbarment is an 733 swearing). 116 However, case,
would be warranted. in this respondent was charged with seventeen counts of making false statements ato federally insured financial institution and three counts of mail fraud.5 In re Anonymous See No. 18 D.B. 14 Pa. D. & (1980) (this C.3d 759 Court disbarring attorney an who was of multiple felony convicted counts of fraud unconnected law, practice despite the Disciplinary Board’s recommenda tion of four-years retroactive suspension); In re Anonymous (1985) (this No. 73 D.B. D. Pa. & C.3d 98 Court disbarring attorney an government who defrauded the claims). submitting discovered, false Had his acts not been his behavior would have benefiting personally continued him professionally, and jeopardizing others Ac financially. I cordingly, must dissent as I believe that the five-year suspension Instead, is too far lenient. I believe that respon dent should be disbarred clearly because conduct demon strates an unfitness to law.
695 A.2d Pennsylvania, Appellant, COMMONWEALTH of
v. Dorothy DENNIS, Appellee.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Oct. 1996. Decided June Reargument August Denied Significantly, Attorney explained, Assistant United States at re- spondent's sentencing hearing, produced fifty he could have over respondent additional loans in produced which fraudulent documents. However, produce chose the additional documents because jury any "no question the world [respondent’s] would have as to guilt” charging twenty after illegal involving him with acts fraud.