Opinion
No. 50 DB 2017 File No. C2-16-807
03-31-2017
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. MICHAEL GRAY LONGENHAGEN Respondent
Attorney Registration No. 48811 (Berks County)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2017, in accordance with Rule 208(a)(5), Pa.R.D.E., the determination by a Review Panel of the Disciplinary Board of the above captioned matter is accepted; and it is
ORDERED that the said MICHAEL GRAY LONGENHAGEN of Berks County be subjected to a PUBLIC REPRIMAND by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as provided in Rule 204(b) and Rule 205(c)(8) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement.
Costs shall be paid by the Respondent.
BY THE BOARD:
/s/_________
Board Chair TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
Attest: /s/_________
Marcee D. Sloan, Board Prothonotary
The Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. MICHAEL GRAY LONGENHAGEN Respondent PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Michael Gray Longenhagen, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your professional peers and members of the public for the imposition of a Public Reprimand. It is an unpleasant task to publicly reprimand one who has been granted the privilege of membership in the bar of this Commonwealth. Yet as repugnant as this task may be, it has been deemed necessary that you receive this public discipline.
Mr. Longenhagen, you are being reprimanded today in connection with your misconduct in the matter involving your client, Leo James.
In June 2013, you filed a complaint on behalf of Mr. James in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In 2015, Office of Disciplinary Counsel gave notice to you by DB-7 Request for Statement of Respondent's Position that you had violated ethical rules in the James matter. By letter of March 16, 2016, Chief Disciplinary Counsel informed you that a determination has been made that you receive an informal admonition for your incompetent representation of Mr. James and your failure to communicate with him. You did not object to this determination and on May 11, 2016, you received an Informal Admonition from Chief Disciplinary Counsel. During this time frame, you continued to represent Mr. James in his Middle District matter. After notification of the informal admonition in March 2016 and imposition of discipline in May 2016, you continued your non-responsiveness and lack of communication with Mr. James. On March 16, 2016, Mr. James sent a letter to Judge Mariani of the Middle District that he had not spoken with you for several months and that you were unresponsive to Mr. James' numerous phone calls. Two weeks after Chief Disciplinary Counsel admonished you, Judge Mariani issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting a summary judgment motion and entering judgment against Mr. James. You never advised Mr. James about Judge Mariani's decision and ignored Mr. James' many telephone messages and his September 27, 2016 letter to you requesting information about his case.
Your conduct in this matter has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
1. RPC 1.2(a) - A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client about the means by which they are to be pursued.
2. RPC 1.3 - A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
3. RPC 1.4(a)(2) - A lawyer shall reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished.
4. RPC 1 4(a)(3) - A lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.
5. RPC 1.4(b) - A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Mr. Longenhagen, we note that you have prior discipline consisting of an Informal Admonition imposed on May 11, 2016, which, as noted above, involved your representation of Leo James. It is appropriate that you receive this public discipline because your representation of Mr. James has continued to be inadequate, demonstrating that the informal admonition did little to deter you from engaging in further misconduct in the same representaion.
Mr. Longenhagen, your conduct in this matter is now fully public. This Public Reprimand is a matter of public record.
As you stand before the Board today, we remind you that you have a continuing obligation to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct. This Public Reprimand is proof that Pennsylvania lawyers will not be permitted to engage in conduct that falls below professional standards. Be mindful that any future dereliction will subject you to disciplinary action.
This Public Reprimand shall be posted on the Disciplinary Board's website at www.padisciplinaryboard.org.
/s/_________
Designated Member
The Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Administered by a designated panel of three Members of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 4, 2017.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned, Respondent in the above proceeding, herewith acknowledges that the above Public Reprimand was administered in his presence and in the presence of the designated panel of The Disciplinary Board at 1601 Market Street, Suite 3320, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 4, 2017.
/s/_________
Michael Gray Longenhagen