Opinion
No. 2031 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 112 DB 2012 Attorney Registration No. 21770
06-16-2014
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. ROBERT PAUL PETYAK, Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Cambria County)
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated January 17, 2014, the Petition for Review and response thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that Robert Paul Petyak is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, the suspension is stayed in its entirety and he is placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to the following conditions:.
1. Respondent shall select a practice monitor subject to the approval of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
2. The practice monitor shall do the following during the period of Respondent's probation:
a. Periodically examine the Respondent's law office organization and procedures to ensure that he is maintaining an acceptable tickler system, filing system, and other administrative aspects of his practice;
b. Meet with the Respondent at least monthly to examine his office and escrow accounts, client ledgers and other financial records to ensure that all
such records are being properly maintained and that fiduciary and non-fiduciary funds are being properly segregated, handled and disbursed in accordance with Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15;
c. Meet with the Respondent at least monthly to examine his progress towards satisfactory and timely completion of clients' legal matters and regular client contact;
d. File quarterly written reports on a Board-approved form with the Secretary of the Board; and
e. Immediately report to the Secretary any violations by the Respondent of the terms and conditions of probation.
3. Respondent shall continue counseling with Diane Sallade or another similarly qualified mental healthcare professional, who is to direct and supervise his activities;
4. Respondent shall cooperate with the directions of the mental healthcare professional supervising his treatment, take medications as prescribed and engage in therapy and counseling sessions as directed;
5. Respondent shall file monthly reports with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel attesting to his continued compliance with Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15;
6. Respondent shall file quarterly written reports with the Secretary of the Board and shall attach physician's reports verifying the above counseling and treatment;
It is further ORDERED that the expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter are to be paid by the Respondent.
Mr. Justice Stevens dissents and would adopt the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's recommendation of a two-year suspension. A True Copy Patricia Nicola
As Of 6/16/2014
Attest:
Chief Clerk
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner
v. ROBERT PAUL PETYAK Respondent
No. 112DB 2012
Attorney Registration No. 21770
(Cambria County)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Pursuant to Rule 208(d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ("Board") herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with respect to the above-captioned Petition for Discipline.
I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
By Petition for Discipline dated Juiy 24, 2012, Office of Disciplinary Counsel charged Robert Paul Petyak with violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(b), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c). Respondent filed an Answer to Petition on September 10, 2012.
A disciplinary hearing was held on February 27, 2013, before a District IV Hearing Committee comprised of Chair Richard P. Kidwell, Esquire, and Members Elizabeth L. Hughes, Esquire, and Lorrie Kay Albert, Esquire. Respondent was represented by John D. Gibson, Esquire. A joint Stipulation of facts and exhibits was submitted by the parties. Petitioner presented the Petition for Discipline at No. 112 DB 2012. Respondent presented six exhibits, which were admitted without objection. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He did not call any other witnesses.
Following the submission of briefs by the parties, the Hearing Committee filed a Report on July 22, 2013, concluding that Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged in the Petition and recommending that Respondent be suspended for a period of two years.
Respondent filed a Brief on Exceptions on September 3, 2013 and requested oral argument before the Disciplinary Board.
Petitioner filed a Brief Opposing Exceptions on September 23, 2013.
Oral argument was held on October 8, 2013, before a three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting on October 9, 2013.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner, whose principal office is located at Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Suite 2700, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, P.O. Box 62485, Harrisburg, PA 17106-2485, is invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, with the power and the duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions of the aforesaid Rules.
2. Respondent is Robert Paul Petyak. He was bom in 1950 and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1975. Respondent's attorney registration mailing address is 104 S. Center Street, Suite 215, Ebensburg, PA 15931. Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
3. On October 12, 2007, Jamie Penrod and her minor child, Laura L. Shirey ("Laura") sustained personal injuries as a result of an automobile accident in which the driver of the other vehicle, Cora Marcinko, struck their vehicle.
4. On January 21, 2009, Respondent filed, or caused to be filed, a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on behalf of Ms. Penrod and Laura, against Ms. Marcinko in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County.
5. On January 21, 2009, Respondent filed a Petition/Motion to Compromise Minor's Claim on behalf of Ms. Penrod and Laura.
6. By Order dated January 23, 2009, the Honorable Fredric J. Ammerman approved the settlement of the action for the gross sum of $13,000.00.
7. On May 7, 2009, Respondent filed an Amended Petition/Motion to Compromise Minor's Claim and Create an Irrevocable Supplemental Needs Trust in regard to the civil action of Ms. Penrod and Laura.
8. By an Amended Order dated June 29, 2009, Judge Ammerman ordered, among other things, that the settlement of Ms. Penrod and Laura's action for the gross sum of $13,000.00 be approved, counsel fees and expenses allowed, and distribution of the proceeds to occur upon approval of the Laura L. Shirey Irrevocable Supplemental Needs Trust Sheltering Assets for Medicaid Qualifications, ("Laura's Trust"), by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue.
9. Pursuant to the Amended Order dated June 29, 2009:
a. Ms. Penrod, as Trustee of Laura's Trust, was to be paid $7,377.55;
b. Respondent was to be paid $2,166.45;
c. Respondent's co-counsel, John R. Lhota, Esquire, was to be paid $2,166.45;
d. Respondent was to be reimbursed for costs advanced of $289.55; and
e. Respondent was to be paid legal fees of $1,000 for preparation and/or presentation of Laura's Trust and the Amended Petition.
10. By check dated January 30, 2009, in the amount of $13,000, made payable to Ms. Penrod and to Respondent, Farmer's New Century Insurance Company paid the settlement proceeds concerning the civil action against Ms. Marcinko.
11. By check dated January 30, 2009, in the amount of $1,500, made payable to Ms. Penrod and Respondent, Farmer's New Century Insurance Company paid the proceeds of the settlement of the bodily injury claim of Ms. Penrod, and of the consortium claim of Ms. Penrod's husband, John D. Penrod, against Ms. Marcinko.
12. On February 3, 2009, Respondent deposited or caused to be deposited the $13,000 and $1,500 checks into his IOLTA account, and was entrusted with $14,500 on behalf of the Penrods.
13. With regard to the $1,500 settlement check, Respondent timely made full and appropriate distributions, and was no longer entrusted with those funds.
14. With regard to the $13,000 settlement check, from February 6, 2009 through February 17, 2009, the following distributions cleared Respondent's IOLTA Account:
a. Check No. 1744, in the amount of $2,166.45, and made payable to Respondent for legal fees;
b. Check No. 1746, in the amount of $2,166.45, and made payable to John R. Lhota, Esquire for legal fees.
c. Check No. 1747, in the amount of $50.00, made payable to Moshannon Valley EMS for records; and
d. Check No. 1748, in the amount of $239.55, made payable to Respondent for reimbursement of costs.
15. Respondent was also due $1,000 in additional attorney fees with regard to the preparation and presentation of Laura's Trust and the Amended Petition.
16. As of February 17, 2009, Respondent was still entrusted with $7,377.55 on behalf of Ms. Penrod in her capacity as Trustee of Laura's Trust.
17. On July 31, 2009, because of payments by Respondent which were unrelated to his entrustment, the balance in his IOLTA Account was $6,271.57, which was $1,105.98 less than his entrustment on behalf of Laura's Trust.
18. On August 31, 2009, because of payments by Respondent which were unrelated to his entrustments, the balance in his IOLTA Account was $4,588.21, which was $2,789.34 less than his entrustment on behalf of Laura's Trust.
19. On February 26, 2010, because of payments by Respondent which were unrelated to his entrustment, the balance in Respondent's IOLTA Account was $2,258.66, which was $5,118.89 less than his entrustment on behalf of Laura's Trust.
20. On April 30, 2010, because of payments by Respondent which were unrelated to his entrustment, the balance in his IOLTA Account was $51.47, which was $7,326.08 less than his entrustment for Laura's Trust.
21. On May 3, 2010, Respondent deposited or caused to be deposited $32,064.76 into his IOLTA Account which was entrusted to him on behalf of Joshua Breto with regard to a real estate matter.
22. On May 3, 2010, an additional $105,000.00 was deposited by wire transfer into Respondent's IOLTA Account on behalf of Mr. Breto, and he was entrusted with a total of $137,064.76 on his behalf.
23. Thereafter, from May 3, 2010 through May 24, 2010, Respondent made disbursements for the Breto matter which totaled $133,473.45.
24. As of May 28, 2010, Respondent was entrusted with $3,591.31 on behalf of Mr. Breto, and $7,377.55 on behalf of Laura's Trust for a total entrustment of $10,968.86.
25. On May 28, 2010, because of payments by Respondent which were unrelated to his entrustment, the balance in his IOLTA Account was $2,091.04, which was $8,877.82 below his total entrustment of $10,968.86.
26. On June 29, 2010, a closing was held with regard to the purchase of real estate located at 632 Sixth Street, Colver, PA, by Respondent's clients, Thomas and Pamela Lamar, for which Respondent acted as settlement agent.
27. On June 29, 2010, Respondent deposited or caused to be deposited into his IOLTA Account a check in the amount of $61,151.10, constituting the proceeds of the purchase of the real estate by Mr. and Mrs. Lamar.
28. Respondent subsequently issued checks from his IOLTA Account with regard to the Lamar closing totaling $58,007.41.
29. On July 15, 2010, after ail of the checks for the Lamar closing cleared his IOLTA Account, Respondent was entrusted with $3,143.69 for the Lamar closing.
30. By check No. 2140 dated July 16, 2010, in the amount of $2,090.07, and made payable to Mr. Breto, and check No. 2141, also dated July 16, 2010, in the amount of $1,586.87, and made payable to Jeffrey P. Dishong, Respondent disbursed the remaining funds with which he was entrusted for the Breto matter.
31. By check No. 2146, drawn on his IOLTA Account, dated July 26, 2010, in the amount of $7,377.55, made payable to Ms. Penrod as Trustee of Laura's Trust, Respondent paid out the remaining funds with which he was entrusted on behalf of Laura's Trust.
32. On July 30, 2010, check No. 2123, dated July 8, 2010, in the amount of $30.00, and made payable to the Cambria County DRS-IV Fund with regard to the Lamar closing, cleared Respondent's account, and Respondent was then still entrusted with $3,113.69 for the Lamar closing.
33. On or about August 9, 2010, as counsel for the Estate of Shirley J. Vannest, Respondent deposited or caused to be deposited $17,557.87, the net proceeds of the sale of real estate belonging to the Vannest Estate, into his IOLTA Account.
34. From August 10, 2010, through October 20, 2010, checks drawn on Respondent's IOLTA Account on behalf of the Vannest Estate totaling $337.60 cleared that account, reducing his entrustment on behalf of the Vannest Estate to $17,220.27.
35. On December 31, 2010, because of payments by Respondent which were unrelated to his entrustments, the balance in his IOLTA Account was $889.12, $19,444.84 less than his total entrustment of $20,333.96 for the Lamar closing and on behalf of the Vannest Estate.
36. By February 22, 2011, checks issued by Respondent to the beneficiaries of the Vannest Estate totaling $16,692.71 had cleared his IOLTA Account, leaving him entrusted with $527.56 on behalf of the Vannest Estate.
37. Respondent was only able to make the disbursements to the beneficiaries of the Vannest Estate after depositing personal funds into his IOLTA Account.
38. As of February 22, 2011, Respondent was entrusted with a total of $3,621.08 on behalf of the Vannest Estate and for the Lamar closing.
39. As of February 22, 2011, the balance in Respondent's IOLTA Account was $1,420.31, which was $2,200.77 less than his total entrustment.
40. On May 12, 2011, an additional check to a beneficiary of the Vannest Estate in the amount of $500 cleared Respondent's IOLTA Account. Crediting Respondent an additional $27.56 in fees, he had disbursed the entire amount with which he was entrusted on behalf of the Vannest Estate.
41. As of May 12, 2011, the balance in Respondent's IOLTA Account was a negative $324.50, and he had misappropriated the remaining $3,113.69 in funds still entrusted to him for the Lamar closing.
42. By check No. 2416, drawn on his IOLTA Account, dated October 27, 2011, in the amount of $3,138.69, made payable to Dennis Kozicki, Respondent disbursed funds with which he was entrusted for the Lamar closing.
43. Respondent was only able to make the October 27, 2011 disbursement for the Lamar closing after depositing personal funds to replace the entrusted funds which he had misappropriated.
44. Respondent made restitution to ail of his clients.
45. Respondent testified at the hearing.
46. He experienced ongoing family and personal problems that impacted his practice of law.
47. Among other things, Respondent was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2002 and underwent radiation and hormone therapy; endured marital difficulties and protracted divorce proceedings, finally divorcing in 2005; had ongoing issues with his ex-wife over the custody of their three children; developed insomnia; and was the primary caretaker for his elderly mother, who suffered from a variety of illnesses, including schizophrenia and Parkinson's before she passed away in 2011. (N.T. 15 - 29, 32-33)
48. Respondent's son was assaulted and later developed severe post-traumatic stress disorder. (N.T. 32-33)
49. Respondent's companion, Suzanne Baumgardner, developed personal problems that impacted Respondent, including mental difficulties that resulted in her hospital commitment. (N.T. 27-28)
50. Respondent was not able to spend as much time on his law practice during these difficulties as he had been when things were more calm.(N.T. 30)
51. Respondent felt overwhelmed and worn down. (N.T. 31)
52. He was barely abie to perform the legal side of his practice, and allowed the management of accounts slip. (N.T. 39) He admits that he was not reconciling his accounts. (N.T. 42)
53. Respondent experienced financial difficulties during the time period of the misconduct.
54. After the disciplinary proceedings commenced, Respondent sought psychological counseling in Pittsburgh after contacting Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers. (N.T. 48)
55. He began treatment with Diane Saliade in iate 2011. With help from counseling, he began to recognize what had happened in his life over the past years, particularly with the business end and the ensuing disciplinary issues. (N.T. 51 - 52)
56. As of the date of the hearing in February 2013, Respondent had participated in 15 therapy sessions, although at that point he had not met with Ms. Sailade since November of 2012. Respondent explained that additional personal difficulties had arisen, thus preventing his attendance at therapy sessions. (N.T. 80) Respondent is interested in renewing his meetings with Ms. Sailade and has discussed it with her. (N.T. 49) He does not take any medications in connection with any mental disorder. (N.T. 82)
57. Respondent introduced the report of Alexandre Y. Dombrovski, M.D. (R-1)
58. Dr. Dombrovski met with Respondent on October 29, 2012.
59. Dr. Dombrovski opined that Respondent's psychological difficulties are "best described as a recent episode of emotional distress triggered by severe stressors and superimposed on a pre-existing vulnerability." (R-1).
60. Dr. Dombrovski concluded that the symptoms of emotional distress superimposed on lifelong relationship difficulties and vulnerabilities were a necessary pre-condition for Respondent's alleged misconduct. (R-1)
61. Dr. Dombrovski noted that "financial difficulties and the demanding, unpredictable nature of his [Respondent's] practice both contributed to his emotional distress and created an extreme pressure that played a role in his behavior, but were not sufficient by themselves (in the absence of emotional distress symptoms)." (R-1)
62. Respondent submitted letters from four witnesses who attested to his good character.
63. Respondent cooperated with Petitioner and demonstrated sincere remorse.
64. Respondent testified that he has been reviewing his accounts on a regular basis, although he did not reconcile his IOLTA account between October 2012 and February 2013. (N.T. 73, 74,75)
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By his actions as set forth above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
1. RPC 1.15(b) - A lawyer shall hold all Rule 1.15 Funds and property separate from the lawyer's own property. Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded.
2. RPC 8.4(b) - It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
3. RPC 8.4(c) - It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
4. Respondent did not demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that he suffered from a psychiatric disorder that caused his misconduct. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 533 A.2d 984 (Pa. 1989).
IV. DISCUSSION
This matter is before the Disciplinary Board for consideration of the charges against Respondent that he misappropriated entrusted funds. The Petition for Discipline alleges violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(b), 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). The evidence of record supports the conclusion that Petitioner met its burden of proof by clear and satisfactory evidence, that Respondent violated the Rules. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick, 749 A.2d 441 (Pa. 2000)
Respondent does not contest the fact that he did not hold entrusted funds separate from his own, or that he violated Rule 1.15(b) in that regard. Respondent asserts that he did not violate Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). A closer look at the joint Stipulations reveals that Respondent acknowledged he was entrusted with client funds, and further knew that he was aware of his entrustment obligations. He stipulated that his balance in the IOLTA account fell far below the level of his entrustments, by as much as $19,444.84 on December 31, 2010. Although he was at that time entrusted with a total of $20,333.96, the balance on that date had fallen to $889.12. Respondent thus misused almost the entirety of the funds with which he was entrusted at that time. Respondent further admitted that he had depleted the funds in his Trust account for personal purposes. (N.T. 72) Respondent's conduct was criminal in nature and reflected adversely upon his fitness to practice law in violation of Rule 8.4(b). As well, his actions constituted dishonest conduct, in violation of Rule 8.4(c).
Following the conclusion that Respondent violated the ethical rules, the Board must determine the appropriate sanction to address such misconduct. A determination of discipline rests on the totality of the unique circumstances of a particular matter. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Valentino, 730 A.2d 479 (Pa. 1999) In order to properly assess discipline, the aggravating and mitigating factors must be weighed and considered in the final discipline. In re Anonymous No. 124 DB 1997, 47 Pa. D. & C. 4th 338 (1998).
Respondent presented extensive evidence of mitigating circumstances, including that he suffered from a mental infirmity which caused his misconduct. We will address this claim first. In order to show that a psychiatric disorder is a mitigating factor, the attorney must demonstrate that the mental disorder was a causal factor in the misconduct. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 533 A.2d 894 (Pa. 1989). Respondent asserts that he suffers from chronic stress and anxiety, which contributed to his misconduct. In support, he testified at great length regarding his impaired mental state. Respondent sought counseling from Diane Sallade commencing in the latter part of 2011. He continued counseling with her every two to three weeks, but as of the date of the hearing in February 2013, had not met with Ms. Sallade since November 2012. He explained this lapse as due to additional personal difficulties.
Respondent provided the report of Alexandre Dombrovski, M.D., a psychiatrist with whom Respondent met on one occasion. Dr. Dombrovski opined that the symptoms of emotional distress superimposed on lifelong relationship difficulties and vulnerabilities were a necessary pre-condition to Respondent's alleged misconduct. The doctor noted that financial difficulties and the demanding nature of Respondent's law practice added to his emotional strain and created extreme pressure.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board concludes that Respondent did not meet the standard for mitigation pursuant to Braun. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent suffered from a psychiatric disorder that caused his misconduct. Dr. Dombrovski's opinion as contained in his report does not clearly link any mental disorder to Respondent's misappropriation of client funds. In point of fact, Dr. Dombrovski notes that the financial issues Respondent was experiencing added to his emotional distress, rather than the emotional distress causing the financial problems.
While we conclude that Braun was not met, we find that many other mitigating factors exist in this particular matter. Prior to and during the time frame of the misconduct, Respondent experienced a panoply of personal difficulties that impacted his life, including his law practice as a sole practitioner. These difficulties left Respondent feeling overwhelmed and worn down. Respondent suffered from prostate cancer and endured treatment for that illness; he was divorced from his wife and had ongoing custody issues regarding the three children of that marriage; he was the caretaker of his elderly mother, who herself suffered from serious illnesses, such as schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease; and Respondent's son was assaulted and experienced concussion related problems. In addition, Respondent has a life companion whose health and family issues have affected Respondent. We find these to be challenging circumstances and consider them in mitigation of Respondent's discipline. In further mitigation, we note that Respondent has practiced law for 38 years with no prior discipline, cooperated with Petitioner and expressed remorse for his actions.
Respondent sought therapy in 2011 to help deal with these various issues. At the time of the hearing in February 2013, he had met with Diane Sallade on 15 occasions, but had not treated with her for approximately three months at that point. Respondent explained that other difficulties had prevented him from meeting with Ms. Sailade, but he intended to renew the visits. Clearly, Respondent has not resolved these stressors in his life but indicated his interest in doing so.
Respondent appears to have taken steps in the right direction to address this multitude of issues, but he still needs time to establish that he will not fall back into the same pattern of behavior. Of concern is his admission at the hearing that while he has put in place office procedures to manage his IOLTA account, he had not reconciled the account from October 17, 2012 until the day before the hearing held on February 27, 2013.
An attorney who converts fiduciary funds is considered a threat to future clients and the public. Matter of Leopold, 366 A.2d 227 (Pa. 1976). The discipline for such misconduct varies widely, based on the circumstances of the case, Many cases result in some length of suspension, or even disbarment. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Marvin F. Galfand, No. 25 DB 2004 (Pa. 2006). The Hearing Committee has recommended a suspension for a period of two years, citing case law in support of this discipline. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Richard B. Moore, 158 DB 2003 (Pa, 2005); In re Anonymous No. 132 DB 1988 (Charles S. Morrow), 7 Pa. D. & C. 4th 331 (1990); In re Anonymous No. 50 DB 1987 (James C. Evans), 3 Pa. D. & C. 4th 627 (1989).
A two year suspension is a reasonable and appropriate period of discipline; however, due to the extenuating mitigating circumstances, the Board recommends that the suspension be stayed in its entirety, and a period of probation with a practice monitor be imposed. Conditions to this probation are that monthly reports regarding Respondent's IOLTA account be sent to Petitioner, with quarterly reports sent to the Secretary of the Board. This stringent reporting requirement will protect the public and force Respondent to better manage his accounts. The stayed suspension is not meant to minimize the nature of Respondent's misconduct, but is consistent with the purpose of the disciplinary system and the facts of this matter. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. John J. O'Brien, III, 69 DB 2012 (Pa. 2013); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Steven M. Stein, No. 106 DB 2010 (Pa. 2011). If Respondent is unable to comply with his obligations under the probation, he will be subject to further disciplinary proceedings.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously recommends that the Respondent, Robert Paul Petyak be Suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, that the suspension be stayed in its entirety and that he be placed on Probation for a period of two years, subject to the following conditions:
1. Respondent shall select a practice monitor subject to the approval of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
2. The practice monitor shall do the following during the period of Respondent's probation:
a. Periodically examine the Respondent's law office organization and procedures to ensure that the Respondent is maintaining an acceptable tickler system, filing system, and other administrative aspects of the Respondent's practice;
b. Meet with the Respondent at least monthly to examine Respondent's office and escrow accounts, client ledgers and other financial records to ensure that all such records are being properly maintained and that fiduciary and non-fiduciary funds are being
properly segregated, handled and disbursed in accordance with Rule of Professional Conduct 1.153. Respondent shall continue counseling with Diane Sallade or another similarly qualified mental healthcare professional, who is to direct and supervise Respondent's activities;
c. Meet with the Respondent at least monthly to examine Respondent's progress towards satisfactory and timely completion of clients' legal matters and regular client contact;
d. File quarterly written reports on a Board approved form with the Secretary of the Board; and
e. Shall immediately report to the Secretary any violations of the Respondent of the terms and conditions of probation.
4. Respondent shall cooperate with the directions of the mental healthcare professional supervising his treatment, take medications as prescribed and engage in therapy and counseling sessions as directed;
5. Respondent shall file monthly reports with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel attesting to his continued compliance with Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15;
6. Respondent shall file quarterly written reports with the Secretary of the Board and shall attach physician's reports verifying the above counseling and treatment;
It is further recommended that the expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter are to be paid by the Respondent.
Respectfully submitted,
THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
By: __________
Tracey McCants Lewis, Board Member