From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigman

DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 28, 2013
No. 43 DB 2012 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Feb. 28, 2013)

Opinion

No. 43 DB 2012 Atty. Reg. No. 88151

02-28-2013

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. SCOTT PHILIP SIGMAN, Respondent

Richard Hernandez Disciplinary Counsel Scott Philip Sigman, Esquire Respondent Barbara S. Rosenberg, Esquire Counsel for Respondent Marin L. Trichon, Esquire Counsel for Respondent


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner

v. SCOTT PHILIP SIGMAN, Respondent

No. 1660 Disciplinary Docket No. 3


No. 43 DB 2012


Attorney Registration No. 88151

(Philadelphia)


ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2013, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated December 7, 2012, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby granted pursuant to Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E., and it is

ORDERED that Scott Philip Sigman is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of thirty months and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.

A True Copy Patricia Nicola

As Of 2/28/2013

Attest:______________________

Chief Clerk

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

(Philadelphia)


JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE

ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E.

Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, by Paul J. Killion, Esquire, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and by Richard Hernandez, Esquire, Disciplinary Counsel, and Respondent, Scott Philip Sigtnan, who is represented by Barbara S. Rosenberg, Esquire, and Martin L. Trichon, Esquire, file this Joint Petition In Support Of Discipline On Consent Under Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 215(d)("the Joint Petition"), and respectfully represent that:

1. Petitioner, whose principal office is located at Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Suite 2700, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, P.O. Box 62485, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereinafter "Pa.R.D.E."), with the power and 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 said Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement.

2. Respondent, Scott Philip Sigman, was born on September 27, 1974, and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth on December 3, 2001. According to attorney registration records, Respondent's office is located at 1515 Market Street, Suite 1360, Philadelphia, PA 19102-1934.

3. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 201(a)(1), Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court.

4. On March 15, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Discipline against Respondent with the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board ("the Secretary").

5. On April 30, 2012, Respondent, through his counsel, filed an Answer to the Petition for Discipline with the Secretary.

SOECIFIC FACTUAL ADMISSIONS AND

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VIOLATED

6. Respondent hereby stipulates that the following factual allegations, which incorporate almost all of the factual allegations set forth in the Petition for Discipline, are true and correct and that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth herein.

CHARGE

7. From July 5, 2005 through March 6, 2009, Respondent was employed as an associate in the law office of Bochetto & Lentz, P.C. ("B&L"), located at 1524 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

8. During Respondent's employment with B&L, Respondent knew that:

a. Respondent was prohibited from handling any client matters independent of his employment with B&L.
b. Respondent was prohibited from handling any client matters that were not approved by George Bochetto, Esquire.
c. Respondent was prohibited from referring client matters or prospective client matters to another attorney or law firm unless approved by Mr. Bochetto.
d. Respondent was required to pay to B&L any referral fees he received for any client or prospective client matters that were referred to other counsel.
e. Respondent was prohibited from declining to accept a client matter that would be handled by B&L without the approval of Mr. Bochetto.
f. Respondent was prohibited from charging a retainer or fee to a client or prospective client without the approval of Mr. Bochetto.
g. For cases that Respondent originated, he was to receive 20% of the fees received by B&L for criminal cases and hourly paid cases, and 33 and 1/3% of the fees received by B&L for contingent fee cases.
h. At all times Respondent was to conduct himself with honesty and transparency and to exhibit absolute loyalty to B&L.
i. Respondent was required to record the time he spent on client files, as well as time he spent on non-client matters that were related to his employment at B&L.

1. THE FURMAN CASE

9. In early February 2007, Ms. Rachel Furman retained Daniel Louis Cevallos, Esquire, to represent her in an appeal of the suspension of her license ("the Furman case").

a. Mr. Cevallos's fee for the representation was $1,250.00.

10. Respondent and Mr. Cevallos knew one another from Mr. Cevallos's prior employment with B&L.

11. Mr. Cevallos had a conflict in his schedule that prevented him from appearing on behalf of Ms. Furman at the February 7, 2007 hearing for the Furman case.

12. Mr. Cevallos contacted Respondent to inquire if Respondent could appear in his stead at the hearing for the Furman case.

13. Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Furman at the February 7, 2007 hearing for the Furman case.

14. Respondent appeared at the February 7, 2007 hearing of the Furman case and was successful in obtaining a favorable result on behalf of Ms. Furman.

15. By e-mail dated February 7, 2007, sent to Respondent and copied to Mr. Cevallos, Ms. Furman, inter alia, thanked Respondent for his service and inquired if she should contact Mr. Cevallos regarding payment or provide Respondent with her credit card information.

16. Respondent received this e-mail.

17. On the "Daily Time Log" Respondent maintained during his employment at B&L, Respondent listed "1.4" as time spent on the Furman case for February 7, 2007.

18. Respondent did not obtain approval from Mr. Bochetto to provide legal services to Ms. Furman in connection with the Furman case.

19. Respondent failed to advise Mr. Bochetto that he had agreed to provide legal services to Ms. Furman in connection with the Furman case.

20. By check dated May 18, 2007, Mr. Cevallos paid to Respondent the sum of $600.00 for his representation of Ms. Furman at the hearing for the Furman case.

a. Mr. Cevallos mailed this check to Respondent at Respondent's then residence located at 117 N. 15th Street, Apt. 1005, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

21. Respondent received this check.

22. Respondent negotiated this check and used the funds.

23. Respondent failed to:

a. notify Mr. Bochetto that he had received from Mr. Cevallos a $600.00 payment for services Respondent rendered to Ms. Furman; and
b. present the $600.00 check he received from Mr. Cevallos to Mr. Bochetto or Mr. Lentz for deposit into B&L's operating account.

24. B&L was entitled to $480.00 from the $600.00 payment that Respondent received for services rendered to Ms. Furman, after deducting Respondent's share of the fee, which was $120.00, or 20% of the $600.00 payment.

25. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 24 above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

a. RPC 1.15(a)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that a lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a client-lawyer relationship separate from the lawyer's own property. Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt, maintenance
and disposition of such property shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the client-lawyer relationship or after distribution or disposition of the property, whichever is later;
b. RPC 1.15(b)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that upon receiving property of a client or third person in connection with a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property; and
c. RPC 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

2. THE WOOD CASE

26. On September 17, 24, and 25, 2007, Respondent met with Mr. Kris Wood, a prospective client.

27. The time records Respondent kept during his employment at B&L show that Respondent met with Mr. Wood on September 17, 24, and 25, 2007.

28. Mr. Wood needed legal assistance in forming a company.

29. Respondent referred Mr. Wood's case to Mr. Cevallos.

30. Respondent failed to obtain the approval of Mr. Bochetto to refer Mr. Wood's case to Mr. Cevallos.

31. Respondent failed to advise Mr. Bochetto that he had referred Mr. Wood's case to Mr. Cevallos.

32. By check dated October 3, 2007, Mr. Cevallos paid to Respondent the sum of $1,500.00 as a referral fee for Mr, Wood's case.

33. Respondent negotiated this check and used the funds.

34. Respondent failed to:

a. notify Mr. Bochetto that he had received from Mr. Cevallos a $1,500.00 referral fee for Mr. Wood's case; and
b. present the $1,500.00 check he received from Mr. Cevallos to Mr. Bochetto for deposit into B&L's operating account.

35. B&L was entitled to $1,000.00 from the $1,500.00 referral fee that Respondent received from Mr. Cevallos.

36. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 8 and 26 through 35, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

a. RPC 1.15(a)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that a lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a client-lawyer relationship separate from the lawyer's own property. Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt, maintenance and disposition of such property shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the client-lawyer
relationship or after distribution or disposition of the property, whichever is later;
b. RPC 1.15(b)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that upon receiving property of a client or third person in connection with a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property; and
c. RPC 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

3 . THE NORCROSS CASE

37. In November 2007, Mr. Howard Norcross ("Mr. Norcross") retained Respondent and B&L to represent his son, Carmen Norcross ("Mr. Carmen Norcross"), in criminal cases filed in the Philadelphia Municipal Court, said cases captioned Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Carmen Norcross , Docket Nos. MC 51-CR-0040108-2007 and 51-CR-0040109-2007 ("the Norcross case").

a. Mr. Bochetto approved of Mr. Sigman's handling of the Norcross case.
b. Mr. Norcross paid a $2,500.00 flat fee for the representation of Carmen Norcross at the preliminary hearing.
c. Respondent received $500.00 from B&L because he originated the Norcros

38. On January 17, 2008, a preliminary hearing was held on the Norcross case at docket number 51-CR-0040108-2007.

a. Carmen Norcross was held for court on the charges of aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and criminal conspiracy.
b. A Common Pleas case was created and docketed
at CP-51-CR-0000700-2008.

39. On January 30, 2008, the Norcross case at docket number 51-CR-0040109-2007 was withdrawn.

40. Sometime in May 2008, Respondent told Mr. Norcross that B&L required an additional payment of $10,000.00 in order to continue to represent Mr. Carmen Norcross.

41. On or about May 27, 2008, Mr. Norcross presented to Respondent bank check number 036-41480, in the amount of $5,000.00, drawn on Commerce Bank, made payable to B&L.

a. Respondent told Mr. Norcross that the bank check should have been made payable to Respondent and requested that he obtain another bank check.

42. Mr. Norcross followed Respondent's directions and obtained bank check number 036-41491, in the amount of $5,000.00, drawn on Commerce Bank, made payable to "Scott Sigman, Esquire."

43. On or about May 28, 2008, Mr. Norcross presented to Respondent bank check number 036-41491.

a. In the "RE:" portion of the check, Mr. Norcross hand wrote the words "Attorney Fees."

44. On June 2, 2008, Respondent deposited bank check number 036-41491 into a personal bank account he maintained with a financial institution.

45. Respondent used the $5,000.00 he received from Mr. Norcross.

46. Respondent failed to:

a. notify Mr. Bochetto that he had received from Mr. Norcross an additional payment of $5,000.00; and
b. present the $5,000.00 check he received from Mr. Norcross to Mr. Bochetto for deposit into B&L's operating account or trust account.

47. From November 8, 2007 through December 16, 2008, Respondent recorded time he spent on the Norcross case while employed at B&L.

a. Respondent did not record that he had received an additional $5,000.00 payment from Mr. Norcross.

48. On August 12, 2008, Mr. Carmen Norcross pled guilty to the charges of aggravated assault and criminal conspiracy.

49. Based on the negotiated guilty plea, Mr. Carmen Norcross was sentenced by the Honorable Michael Erdos to a period of incarceration of six months to twenty-three months, to be followed by a probationary term of four years.

50. Sometime in late March 2009, after Respondent's employment at B&L ceased, Mr. Norcross spoke on the telephone with Mr. Bochetto.

a. Mr. Norcross requested a refund of the $5,000.00 payment.
b. Mr. Bochetto told Mr. Norcross that he was unaware of a $5,000.00 payment having been made by Mr. Norcross to B&L, which was in fact the case.
c. Mr. Norcross related to Mr. Bochetto the events surrounding the $5,000.00 payment received by Respondent from Mr. Norcross.

51. Following Mr. Norcross and Mr. Bochetto's telephone conversation, Mr. Bochetto spoke with the bookkeeper for B&L and confirmed that the firm had not received a $5,000.00 payment from Mr. Norcross,

52. Thereafter, Mr. Bochetto sent to Respondent an e-mail regarding his telephone conversation with Mr. Norcross and requested an explanation.

53. Mr. Bochetto received a telephone call from Respondent, during which call Respondent stated that Mr. Norcross "is crazy, he never paid $5,000."

54. Immediately thereafter, Respondent contacted Mr. Norcross by telephone.

a. Respondent asked Mr. Norcross why he had contacted his former employer.
b. Mr. Norcross answered that he was unaware that Respondent was no longer employed at B&L, and explained that he was seeking a refund.
c. Respondent directed Mr. Norcross not to contact B&L.
d. Respondent told Mr. Norcross that he would provide Mr. Norcross with a refund.

55. After Mr. Bochetto received Respondent's reply to Mr. Bochetto's e-mail, Mr. Bochetto decided to contact Mr. Norcross by telephone.

a. Mr. Norcross conveyed to Mr. Bochetto the recent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Norcross, including Respondent's directive that Mr. Norcross
refrain from contacting B&L.
b. Mr. Norcross reiterated to Mr. Bochetto the events surrounding Respondent's receipt of the $5,000.00 payment, including Respondent's instruction to Mr. Norcross to secure a second $5,000.00 bank check made payable to Respondent.

56. On March 27, 2009, Respondent met with Mr. Norcross.

a. Respondent told Mr. Norcross that he would refund the sum of $2,500.00.
b. Respondent presented Mr. Norcross with a letter that he had prepared, dated March 27, 2009, which memorialized an agreement between Respondent and Mr. Norcross that Mr. Norcross would receive a refund from Respondent in the amount of $2,500.00.
c. Mr. Norcross was dissatisfied with the $2,500.00 refund; therefore, Respondent hand-wrote on the March 27, 2009 letter that by June 30, 2009, he would refund to Mr. Norcross the additional amount of $1,500.00.
d. Respondent and Mr. Norcross signed the March
27, 2009 letter.
e. Respondent refunded to Mr. Norcross the sum of $2,500.00.

57. In July 2009, Respondent paid Mr. Norcross the additional sum of $1,500.00.

58. B&L was entitled to $800.00 from the $1,000 fee payment that Respondent received from Mr. Norcross, after deducting the $4,000.00 refund that Respondent provided to Mr. Norcross; Respondent's share of the fee was $200.00, or 20% of the $1,000.00 fee payment.

59. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 8 and 37 through 58, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

a. RPC 1.15(a)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that a lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a client-lawyer relationship separate from the lawyer's own property. Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt, maintenance and disposition of such property shall be
preserved for a period of five years after termination of the client-lawyer relationship or after distribution or disposition of the property, whichever is later;
b. RPC 1.15(b)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that upon receiving property of a client or third person in connection with a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property; and
c. RPC 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

4. THE RAYZ REFERRAL

60. During Respondent's employment with B&L, Respondent knew that for cases that an associate attorney originated that were referred by another attorney, the associate attorney typically would receive 8% of the fees received by B&L and the referring attorney would receive 20% of the fees received by B&L, with the client's approval.

61. By e-mail dated April 6, 2007, sent to Respondent, Arkady (Eric) Rayz, Esquire, inter alia:

a. advised Respondent that he had referred to Respondent a potential client by the name of Anthony Barg; and
b. explained that he had a conflict that prevented him from handling Mr. Barg's legal matter.

62. By e-mail dated April 6, 2007, sent to Mr. Rayz, Respondent, inter alia:

a. thanked him for the referral;
b. advised him that Respondent would pay "a. referral fee on the case if we get
retained"; and
c. mentioned that Respondent had met with Mr. Barg at noon that day and intended to send Mr. Barg a retainer agreement.

63. Respondent obtained Mr. Bochetto's approval to have B&L represent Mr. Barg.

64. Respondent failed to disclose to Mr. Bochetto that:

a. Mr. Barg had been referred to Respondent by Mr. Rayz; and
b. Respondent had promised Mr. Rayz a referral fee

65. By e-mail dated April 9, 2007, with a subject heading of "New File Open requests - Anthony Barg," sent to Barbara Stewart, the bookkeeper for B&L, Respondent, inter alia:

a. provided Mr, Barg's address, telephone, and credit card information;
b. designated himself as the attorney responsible for originating the file; and
c. indicated the firm's receipt of a $5,000.00 retainer through a credit card payment.

66. Respondent failed to disclose to Ms. Stewart that:

a. Mr. Barg had been referred to Respondent by Mr. Rayz; and
b. Respondent had promised Mr. Rayz a referral fee.

67. By e-mail dated August 8, 2007, sent to Ms. Stewart, Respondent, inter alia:

a. requested that she open a new file to be titled "Tony Barg - Partnership";
b. advised her that the contact information for Mr. Barg remained the same; and
c. designated himself as the attorney responsible for originating the file.

68. By e-mail dated January 28, 2008, with a subject heading of "Re: Barg/Allied Credit Cards," sent to Ms. Stewart, Respondent, inter alia:

a. provided the B&L account number, statement number, balance figure, and adjusted balance figure;
b. requested that Ms. Stewart charge Mr. Barg's credit card $3,893.16, which was the adjusted balance figure, and mark the file as "Paid in Full"; and
c.reminded her that he was to receive a 20% origination payment.

69. During the period that B&L represented Mr. Barg in his legal matter, Mr. Barg paid B&L attorney fees and costs in the amount of $34,397.14.

a. Exclusive of costs, B&L was paid $32,409.67 as attorney fees.

70. Respondent received $6,580.95 as origination compensation in connection with Mr. Barg's legal matter.

a. Due to an error made by B&L, Respondent received from B&L $99.02 more in origination compensation based on a 20% calculation figure.

71. Respondent should have received origination compensation in the amount of $2,592.77, which equals 8% of the attorney fees paid by Mr. Barg to B&L.

72. Respondent converted to his own use the sum of $3,988.18, which is the difference between the origination compensation he was paid in connection with Mr. Barg's legal matter and the origination compensation he should have received.

73. By failing to disclose to Mr. Bochetto and Ms. Stewart that Respondent had promised Mr. Rayz a referral fee in connection with Mr. Barg's legal matter, Respondent deprived Mr. Rayz of payment of a $6,481.93 referral fee from B&L.

74. Respondent failed to promptly notify Mr. Rayz when Respondent was paid attorney fees from Mr. Barg during the course of B&L's representation of Mr. Barg.

75. Respondent failed to take action to ensure that prompt distribution was made to Mr. Rayz of that portion of the attorney fees B&L received from Mr. Barg during the course of B&L's representation of Mr. Barg.

76. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 8 and 60 through 75, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

a. RPC 1.15(a)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that a lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a client-lawyer relationship separate from the lawyer's own property. Such property shall be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of the receipt, maintenance and disposition of such property shall be
preserved for a period of five years after termination of the client-lawyer relationship or after distribution or disposition of the property, whichever is later;
b. RPC 1.15(b)(effective 4/23/05, superseded effective 9/20/08), which states that upon receiving property of a client or third person in connection with a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property; and
c. RPC 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

77. During Respondent's employment with B&L, Respondent knew that for client matters or prospective client matters that an associate attorney originated that were referred to another attorney or law firm with the approval of Mr. Bochetto, the associate attorney would receive 33% of the referral fee received by B&L for contingent fee cases.

78. On June 26, 2007, Respondent had a conference call with Ms. Jillene Pasternak and her daughter, Amy Hendry.

79. During the conference call:

a. Ms. Pasternak described to Respondent a slip and fall accident she had on June 20, 2007, which occurred on the sidewalk outside a Sheraton Hotel located on Dock Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
b. Ms. Pasternak expressed to Respondent her need to retain counsel to represent her for any claims she had arising from the slip and fall accident.
c. Respondent referred Ms. Pasternak to A. Harold Datz, Esquire, and provided Ms. Pasternak with Mr. Datz's telephone number.

80. Respondent failed to obtain the approval of Mr. Bochetto to refer Ms. Pasternak's slip and fall accident case to Mr. Datz.

81. By e-mail dated June 27, 2007, sent to Respondent, Ms. Hendry, inter alia:

a. expressed her thanks for the "patience and knowledge" Respondent exhibited during the June 26, 2007 conference call;
b. stated that her mother, Ms. Pasternak, was relieved to have spoken with Respondent;
c. advised that Ms. Pasternak had yet to speak to "[Respondent's] recommendation - Harold Datz"; and
d. asked if Respondent could alert Mr. Datz that Ms. Pasternak was trying to reach him.

82. By e-mail dated June 27, 2007, sent to Mr. Datz, and with the subject heading of "New Case," Respondent forwarded to Mr. Datz Ms. Hendry's June 27, 2007 e-mail.

83. By e-mail dated June 27, 2007, sent to Mr. Datz, and with the subject heading of "Jill Pasternak," Respondent, inter alia:

a. provided Mr. Datz with Ms. Pasternak's telephone number;
b. advised Mr. Datz that Ms. Pasternak left Mr. Datz a message and was waiting for a return telephone call; and
c. requested that Mr. Datz contact Ms. Pasternak.

84. By e-mail dated June 27, 2007, sent to Respondent, Mr. Datz, inter alia:

a. advised Respondent that he had just spoken with Ms. Pasternak and that he was "on the case";
b. thanked Respondent for the referral;
c. informed Respondent that he would "keep [him] posted"; and
d. stated that "[i]t goes without saying that [Respondent] will receive a referral fee upon the successful conclusion of the case."

85. By e-mail dated June 28, 2007, sent to Respondent, Ms. Hendry, inter alia:

a. advised Respondent that she had spoken to Ms. Pasternak the previous evening and had
learned that Ms. Pasternak had spoken with Mr. Datz, who was planning to meet with Ms. Pasternak at her home that day; and
b. thanked Respondent for speaking with Ms. Pasternak the previous day and answering Ms. Pasternak's questions.

86. By e-mail dated June 28, 2007, sent to Mr. Datz, and with the subject heading of "Re: Info," Respondent provided Mr. Datz with Respondent's home address and personal cell phone number.

87. Ms. Pasternak retained Mr. Datz to represent her for any claims she had arising from the June 20, 2007 slip and fall accident.

88. As of March 2009, Respondent's employment with B&L ceased.

89. In or about April 2009, Mr. Datz settled Ms. Pasternak's slip and fall accident case for the sum of $216,000.00.

90. By e-mail dated April 10, 2009, sent to Mr. Datz, Respondent, inter alia:

a. attached an unidentified pdf file for Mr. Datz;
b. provided Mr. Datz with tax identification
number "264402924"; and
c. thanked Mr. Datz.

91. Sometime in late April 2009, Mr. Datz received the $216,000.00 settlement check.

a. Mr. Datz, pursuant to a fee agreement signed by Ms. Pasternak, received a 40% contingent fee, resulting in a fee of $86,400.00.

92. By check number 4040, dated April 30, 2009, drawn on Mr. Datz's IOLTA account with Wachovia Bank, Mr. Datz paid to Respondent a referral fee in the amount of $28,800.00, which amount represented one-third of the legal fee that Mr. Datz received for representing Ms. Pasternak.

a. The "Memo" portion of this check stated the following: "PASTERNAK, JILLENE V STARWOOD HOTELS ET AL RE."

93. Respondent failed to:

a. advise Mr. Bochetto that he had received a $28,800.00 referral fee from Mr. Datz that was generated from a personal injury case Respondent referred during the period he was employed at B&L; and
b. pay to B&L the sum of $19,200.00, which represented the portion of the $28,800.00
referral fee that B&L was entitled to receive.

94. Respondent failed to hold in a trust account for the benefit of B&L $19,200.00 from the $28,800.00 referral fee.

95. Respondent used all of the proceeds from the $28,800.00 referral fee that he received from Mr. Datz.

96. Respondent converted to his own use the sum of $19,200.00, which is the amount that B&L was entitled to receive from the $28,800.00 referral fee.

97. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 8 and 77 through 96, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

a. RPC 1.15(b), which states that 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;
b. RPC 1.15(d), which states that upon receiving Rule 1.15 Funds or property which are not Fiduciary Funds or property, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person, consistent with the
requirements of applicable law. Notification of receipt of Fiduciary Funds or property to clients or other persons with a beneficial interest in such Fiduciary Funds or property shall continue to be governed by the law, procedure and rules governing the requirements of confidentiality and notice applicable to the Fiduciary entrustment;
c. RPC 1.15(e), which states that except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any property, including but not limited to Rule 1.15 Funds, that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding the property; Provided, however, that the delivery, accounting and disclosure of Fiduciary Funds or property shall continue to be governed by the law, procedure and
rules governing the requirements of Fiduciary administration, confidentiality, notice and accounting applicable to the Fiduciary entrustment; and
d. RPC 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

6. THE BOERNER MATTER

98. On or about October 5, 2005, Mr. James Boerner's residence located at 200 North Pine Avenue, Maple Shade Township, Burlington County, New Jersey ("the property"), was destroyed by a fire.

a. Prior to this incident, Mr. Boerner's mortgage company, National City Mortgage Company ("National City"), had instituted foreclosure proceedings against the property in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County.
b. Richard P. Haber, Esquire, and Leonard B. Zucker, Esquire, represented National City in the foreclosure proceedings.

99. On December 16, 2005, Mr. Boerner retained B&L to represent him in connection with an arson investigation conducted by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ("State Farm") or any law enforcement authority ("the Boerner matter").

a. Mr. Bochetto approved of Respondent's representation of Mr. Boerner prior to any criminal indictment in connection with a criminal investigation.
b. Mr. Bochetto approved a fee of $5,000.00 non-refundable retainer for representation prior to any potential criminal indictment for arson in connection with a criminal investigation.
c. Respondent received $750.00 from B&L because he originated the Boerner matter.
d. Respondent was assigned to handle the Boerner matter,

100. Respondent provided Mr. Boerner with a letter prepared on B&L letterhead dated December 16, 2005, which set forth the terms of the representation by B&L.

101. On or about December 19, 2005, B&L received payment of the $5,000.00 retainer from Mr. Boerner.

102. Commencing sometime in September 2005, Mr. Boerner had discussions with Herbert Donald McCulloch, a potential co-buyer, concerning the sale of the property to Mr. McCulloch and to Mr. Hollis Hames.

a. Mr. McCulloch was represented by the law firm of Prochniak, Weisberg, P.C., for the purpose of providing him with counsel and advice in acquiring the property and for the purpose of drafting the documents to consummate Mr. McCulloch's acquisition of the property.
b. Following Mr. Boerner's retention of B&L, Respondent provided legal counsel and advice to Mr. Boerner regarding the documents that were drafted to consummate the sale of the property.
c. In connection with Respondent's representation of Mr. Boerner concerning the sale of the property, Respondent had contact with Matthew B. Weisberg, Esquire, counsel for Mr. McCulloch.

103. From January 3, 2006 through February 8, 2006, twenty-two e-mails were sent to Respondent either by Mr. Weisberg or Mr. Haber, and dealt with efforts to delay the sheriff's sale of the property and to effectuate the sale of the property from Mr. Boerner to Mr. McCulloch and Mr. Hames.

104. Respondent received the aforementioned e-mails.

105. By e-mail dated January 26, 2006, sent to Mr. Weisberg and Mr. Haber, Respondent responded to Mr. Weisberg's initial e-mail of January 26, 2006, by stating that he would check with Mr. Boerner and his father regarding the proposal set forth in Mr. Weisberg's e-mail.

106. By e-mail dated February 17, 2006, sent to Respondent by Evan D. Prochniak, Esquire, Mr. Weisberg's law partner, and copied to Mr. McCulloch, Mr. Hames, and Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Prochniak, inter alia:

a. attached for Respondent's review the documents that Mr. Boerner had to sign to transfer title to the property;
b. requested that Respondent let him know immediately if Respondent wanted any changes to the documents; and
c. stated that he could have a "closer" deliver the attached documents to Mr. Boerner that day for his signature.

107. By e-mail dated February 17, 2006, sent to Mr. Prochniak, Respondent replied that the "docs are fine for him [Mr. Boerner] to sign."

108. On February 17, 2006, Mr. Boerner, Mr. McCulloch, and Mr. Hames executed a document entitled "Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Estate" ("the Agreement").

109. Mr. McCulloch and Mr, Hames paid to National City the amount that was due and owing to National City under the mortgage it held on the property.

110. For the months of January and February 2006, the time records Respondent kept for the Boerner matter during his employment at B&L reflect that Respondent received and reviewed e-mails from Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Haber, and Mr. Prochniak; Respondent sent e-mails to Mr. Weisberg; Respondent had telephone conversations with Mr. Boerner, Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Haber, and Mr. Prochniak regarding the sale of the property; and Respondent reviewed the Agreement.

111. By e-mail dated February 21, 2006, sent to Respondent by Mr. Weisberg, and which had a subject description of "Boerner: Fire Ins.," Mr. Weisberg, inter alia:

a. asked Respondent to forward the homeowner's insurance policy and policy information for
the property; and
b. inquired when Mr. Boerner's examination under oath and trial would take place.

112. By e-mail dated February 26, 2006, which Respondent sent to Mr. Weisberg and copied to Lynne Nucci, Respondent's paralegal during Respondent's employment at B&L, and which e-mail had a subject description of "Boerner: Fire Ins.," Respondent, inter alia:

a. requested that Ms. Nucci provide Mr. Weisberg with the information regarding Mr. Boerner's homeowner's policy as requested in Mr. Weisberg's February 21, 2006 e-mail;
b. stated that Mr. Boerner's examination under oath would take place on March 7, 2006; and
c. advised that no criminal case had been filed against Mr. Boerner.

113. By e-mail dated February 28, 2006, sent by Mr. Weisberg to Respondent and copied to Ms. Nucci, and which had a subject description of "Boerner: Fire Ins.," Mr. Weisberg requested a response from Ms. Nucci.

114. By e-mail dated February 28, 2006, which Respondent sent to Mr. Weisberg and copied to Ms. Nucci, and which had a subject description of "Boerner: Fire Ins.," Respondent again requested that Ms. Nucci provide Mr. Weisberg with the information regarding Mr. Boerner's homeowner's policy.

115. On March 27, 2006, Respondent represented Mr. Boerner while he was examined under oath by Mark S. Hochman, Esquire, an attorney representing State Farm, concerning claim number 30-P140-317.

a. Mr. Hochman wanted to question Mr. Boerner regarding a claim that Mr. Boerner submitted to State Farm arising from the fire that destroyed the property.
b. During the examination, Mr. Boerner asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to the majority of the questions posed to him by Mr. Hochman.
c. Towards the close of the examination, Respondent stated that after an off-the-record conversation with Mr. Boerner, Mr. Boerner agreed to "forego any claims he submitted to State Farm Insurance Company. He's not interested in pursuing any insurance claim with State Farm."
d. Mr. Hochman told Respondent that he would
discuss the matter with representatives of State Farm and advise Respondent if State Farm would close its investigation based on Mr. Boerner's willingness to withdraw his claim.

116. By letter dated March 31, 2006, sent to Mr. Boerner and copied to Respondent, State Farm informed Mr. Boerner that no coverage existed for the fire that destroyed the property because Mr. Boerner failed to answer questions during the March 27, 2006 examination.

a. Respondent received this letter.

117. On June 30, 2006, State Farm issued a check ("the State Farm check") in the amount of $130,727.45, made payable to "National City Mortgage Co. its succ. and/or assigns: ATIMA."

a. The State Farm check had typed on it a "loss date" of "10/05/2006."
b. The State Farm check had typed on it "CLAIM NO 30-P140-317."

118. National City, having received payment of its mortgage on the property from Mr. McCulloch, endorsed the State Farm check and forwarded it to Mr. Boerner.

119. On July 17, 2006, Respondent had a conference call with Mr. Boerner regarding the State Farm check.

120. On July 24, 2006, Respondent had a second conference call with Mr. Boerner regarding the State Farm check.

121. On July 25, 2006, Respondent had a third conference call with Mr. Boerner regarding the State Farm check.

a. After Respondent's conference call with Mr. Boerner, Respondent placed a telephone call to State Farm.

122. On July 26, 2006, Respondent had a fourth conference call with Mr. Boerner regarding the State Farm check.

123. On July 27, 2006, Respondent had a fifth conference call with Mr. Boerner regarding the State Farm check.

124. On July 28, 2006, Respondent had a sixth conference call with Mr. Boerner regarding, inter alia, the State Farm check.

125. Respondent knew that Mr. Boerner had received from National City a check issued on account of the obligation of State Farm to make payment to a mortgagee on an insurance contract when the collateral securing the obligation (i.e., the improvements to the property) was destroyed,

126. Sometime in August 2006, arrangements were made between Respondent and Mr. Boerner for Mr. Boerner to deposit the State Farm check into B&L's escrow account.

127. On August 11, 2006, Mr. Boerner met with Respondent at the office of B&L and presented to Respondent the State Farm check for deposit into B&L's escrow account.

128. On August 11, 2006, the State Farm check was deposited into B&L's escrow account.

129. By letter dated August 11, 2006, sent by Respondent to Mr. Boerner, Respondent, inter alia:

a. confirmed that Mr. Boerner requested that B&L hold his "mortgage proceeds in the amount of $130,727.45 in escrow pending the outcome of the arson investigation"; and
b. informed Mr. Boerner that the "mortgage proceeds" would be held in escrow until Mr. Boerner requested the release of the funds.

130. In December 2006, after request of Mr. Boerner, the B&L bookkeeper distributed the proceeds from the State Farm check as set forth below:

a. pursuant to Respondent's letter to Mr.
Boerner dated December 4, 2006, $30,000.00 was paid to B&L as a fee for representation of Mr. Boerner in a Driving Under the Influence case;
b. $13,498.83 was paid to the United States Treasury to satisfy Mr. Boerner's federal tax debt, which was memorialized in letters Respondent sent to Mr. Boerner dated December 4, 2006 and December 11, 2006;
c. pursuant to the December 11, 2006 letter, $30,000.00 was paid to B&L for representation of Mr. Boerner in a second Driving Under the Influence case; and
d. the remainder of the funds was disbursed to Mr. Boerner, which disbursement was memorialized in the December 11, 2006 letter.

131. Based on the two $30,000.00 payments received by B&L as legal fees from Mr. Boerner, B&L received $48,000.00 in fees, and Respondent received two separate payments from B&L, each in the amount of $6,000.00, because Respondent originated the additional representation of Mr. Boerner in his criminal matters.

132. By e-mail dated May 2, 2007, sent to Respondent by Mr. Weisberg, and which had a subject description of "Boerner: Fire Ins.," Mr. Weisberg, inter alia:

a. stated that he was advised that Respondent had received the insurance proceeds arising from the fire to the property and that Respondent had taken a fee and distributed the remaining proceeds to Mr. Boerner;
b. pointed out that the Agreement made Mr. Weisberg's client the beneficiary of any insurance payout arising from the fire to the property; and
c. "suggested" that Respondent retrieve the insurance proceeds from Mr. Boerner "before this blows up...."

133. Respondent received this e-mail.

134. By letter dated May 3, 2007, sent to Respondent by Alan H. Ettenson, Esquire, counsel for Mr. McCulloch, Mr. Ettenson, inter alia:

a. advised Respondent that he represented Mr. McCulloch "with regard to insurance proceeds that are due him arising out of the sale" of the property;
b. stated that Respondent had told Mr. Ettenson that B&L had received funds from National City "in the approximate amount of $136,000 (in or about July, 2006) and that [Respondent] disbursed those funds in December, 2006";
c. advised that Mr. McCulloch, not Mr. Boerner, was entitled to the funds that Mr. Boerner had received; and
d. stated that although Respondent had contended that he was not involved in the sale of the property, Mr. Ettenson had documents that showed Respondent's involvement in the transaction.

135. Respondent received this letter and reviewed it with Mr. Bochetto.

136. On or about May 8, 2007, Respondent had a meeting with Mr. Bochetto and others regarding Mr. Ettenson's May 3, 2007 letter.

a. Respondent claimed that he had not reviewed the Agreement and that he did not know whether Mr. Boerner was entitled to the
proceeds from the State Farm check that had been held in the B&L escrow account.
b. In Respondent's presence, Mr. Bochetto called Mr. Ettenson regarding his letter.

137. Based on the discussion between Respondent and Mr. Bochetto during the meeting and the conference call, a decision was reached that Mr. Bochetto would send Mr. Ettenson a letter.

a. Respondent prepared a draft of this letter.

138. By letter dated May 9, 2007, which was sent to Mr. Ettenson, Mr. Bochetto, inter alia:

a. stated that the letter was a follow-up to their prior telephone conversation and was responsive to certain issues raised in Mr. Ettenson's May 3, 2007 letter;
b. discussed how, and under what circumstances, the proceeds from the State Farm check had been distributed;
c. represented that Respondent was unaware of a dispute regarding entitlement to the proceeds from the State Farm check until Respondent received Mr. Ettenson's letter; and
d. stated that after speaking with Respondent, he learned that, inter alia, Respondent had not reviewed the Agreement and that the only advice Respondent gave to Mr. Boerner was that the pending criminal investigations would not prevent Mr. Boerner from selling the property.

139. Respondent was copied on this letter.

140. Unbeknownst to Mr. Bochetto, his May 9, 2007 letter contained several misrepresentations, in that Respondent:

a. had received and reviewed the Agreement; and
b. had some involvement in the sale of the property.

141. In April 2008, Mr. McCulloch filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, captioned Albert Donald "Tripp" McCulloch vs. Matthew B. Weisberg, Evan D. Prochniak, Prochniak, Weisberg, P.C. f/k/a Prochniak, Poet & Weisberg, P.C., John Does and Jane Does, 1-10, and Richard Roe, Inc. 1-10, jointly, severally and in the alternative ("the McCulloch lawsuit"), docketed at BUR-L-1188-08.

142. In January 2009, Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Prochniak, and their firm filed in connection with the McCulloch lawsuit a Third Party Complaint against Mr. Sigman, B&L, and Mr,

143. In January 2009, Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Prochniak, and their firm filed in connection with the McCulloch lawsuit a Third Party Complaint against Respondent, B&L, and Mr. Boerner,

a. The Third Party Complaint alleged that Respondent and B&L knew or should have known that the proceeds from the State Farm check belonged to Mr. McCulloch and not Mr. Boerner.

144. On or about February 23, 2009, Respondent prepared an Affidavit for his signature ("the Sigman Affidavit").

145. In the Sigman Affidavit, which stated that Respondent was "duly sworn according to law," Respondent claimed, inter alia, that:

As far as I knew, State Farm declined to pay Mr. Boerner's fire insurance claim based on his failure to cooperate and answer questions at the deposition. This understanding was confirmed in a letter from State Farm dated March 31, 2006. The letter stated that Mr. Boerner would not be covered
for the fire related loss that occurred on October 5, 2005.
On August 11, 2006, Mr. Boerner did give me a check from his mortgage company to hold in escrow, so that he would have adequate resources to pay his defense fees and to pay off money he owed to the IRS.

146. Respondent signed the Sigman Affidavit, which was notarized by Ms, Parisano and witnessed by a third party.

147. On March 3, 2009, Respondent was deposed by Mr. Ettenson and by Barry Brownstein, Esquire, counsel for Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Prochniak, and their law firm.

148. During the deposition, Respondent provided Mr. Ettenson and Mr. Brownstein with, inter alia, the Sigman Affidavits.

149. During the deposition, Respondent falsely testified that:

a. he did not review the Agreement before the property was sold;
b. he was not involved in the sale of the property;
c. he did not keep time records for the legal services he rendered to Mr. Boerner;
d. he was unaware that State Farm issued a check;
e. he was unaware that State Farm issued a check for the fire that destroyed the property;
f. he did not know that Mr. Boerner received a check from State Farm;
g. he did not question Mr. Boerner about the "mortgage company" (in actuality, the State Farm) check;
h. he did not contact State Farm regarding the State Farm check;
i. he did not know that Mr. Boerner was presenting to Respondent the State Farm check for deposit into the B&L escrow account; and
j. he did not take a fee from fire insurance proceeds.

150. Respondent kept track of the time he spent on Mr. Boerner's matters while he was employed at B&L.

151. The Sigman Affidavit, in conjunction with Respondent's false testimony at the deposition, was misleading, in that Respondent created the false impression that he was unaware that the "mortgage company" check he received from Mr. Boerner for deposit into B&L's escrow account was issued by State Farm.

152. Respondent, through his attorney, David F. Michelman, Esquire, sent a May 7, 2009 letter to Mr. Ettenson and Mr. Brownstein in which Mr. Ettenson and Mr. Brownstein were advised that Respondent wanted to "correct" "certain mistakes" Respondent made during his deposition and requested that Respondent be re-deposed, specifically, the fact that time records were kept, the nature of the $130,000.00 check, the nature of the Boerner representation, and the fees paid to B&L.

a. This letter was sent after Mr. Michelman and Respondent reviewed Respondent's billing records, and payment records, maintained by B&L for the Boerner matter.

153. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 8 and 98 through 152, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

a. RPC 3.4(a), which states that a lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other
material having potential evidentiary value or assist another person to do any such act;
b. RPC 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and
c. RPC 8.4(d), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

7. THE WESTLAW ACCOUNT

154. During the course of Respondent's employment at B&L, Respondent received a Westlaw password for the Westlaw account maintained by B&L.

155. B&L's Westlaw account was to be used exclusively in connection with the representation of B&L clients or on behalf of B&L.

156. At no time did Mr. Bochetto authorize Respondent to disseminate to anyone not employed by B&L the Westlaw password Respondent received for B&L's Westlaw account.

157. By e-mail dated June 13, 2007, which was sent to Respondent by Ms. Tara D'Lutz, Esquire, an attorney with whom Respondent was acquainted, Ms. D'Lutz stated the following:

That wonderful Lexis ID you gave me is defunct-do you have an ID-broad-spectrum, that I could use to run one background check on this slimebag "Irving Friend"-a minister of all things involved in this sexual harassment/defamation case I have?

158. Respondent received this e-mail.

159. In response to this e-mail, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ms. Tara D'Lutz that had the Westlaw password for B&L's Westlaw account.

a. Ms. Tara D'Lutz was not employed by B&L.
b. Ms. Tara D'Lutz was employed as an attorney with the law firm of William G. Shields & Associates, which is located in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

160. Respondent did not advise Ms. Tara D'Lutz that the Westlaw password she received from him was for B&L's Westlaw account.

161. During the months of July and August 2007, Ms. Tara D'Lutz used the Westlaw password for B&L's Westlaw account for searches related to Alaska and Virginia case law.

162. B&L received invoices for the months of July and August 2007 from Westlaw for B&L's Westlaw account which reflected charges related to searches of Alaska and Virginia case law.

163. By two e-mails dated August 14, 2007, Ms. Barbara Stewart questioned the employees of B&L about charges made to B&L's Westlaw account.

164. By an e-mail dated August 21, 2 007, Ms. Barbara Stewart questioned the employees of B&L about charges relating to Virginia or Alaska law made to B&L's Westlaw account.

165. Respondent denied having any information about the unauthorized charges relating to Alaska or Virginia law made to B&L's Westlaw account.

166. Respondent did not have any information about unauthorized charges relating to Alaska law made to B&L's Westlaw account.

167. B&L paid Westlaw $3,662.80 for the usage.

168. B&L learned that Ms. Tara D'Lutz had received the Westlaw password for B&L's Westlaw account from Respondent and that she had used that password to conduct research relating to Alaska and Virginia case law.

169. By check dated November 16, 2009, William G. Shields, Esquire, paid to B&L the sum of $3,662.80.

170. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 154 through 169 above, Respondent violated the following Rule of Professional Conduct:

a. RPC 8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for a. lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

SPECIFIC JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE

171. Petitioner and Respondent jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline for Respondent's admitted misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law for a period of thirty months.

172. Respondent hereby consents to that discipline being imposed upon him by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Attached to this Petition is Respondent's executed Affidavit required by Rule 215(d), Pa.R.D.E., stating that he consents to the recommended discipline, including the mandatory acknowledgements contained in Rule 215(d)(1) through (4), Pa.R.D.E.

173. In support of Petitioner and Respondent's joint recommendation, it is respectfully submitted that there are several mitigating circumstances:

a. Respondent has admitted engaging in misconduct and violating the charged Rules
of Professional Conduct;
b. Respondent has cooperated with Petitioner, as is evidenced by Respondent's admissions herein and his consent to receiving a suspension of thirty months;
c. Respondent is remorseful for his misconduct and understands he should be disciplined, as is evidenced by his consent to receiving a suspension of thirty months;
d. Respondent has no record of discipline in the Commonwealth; and
e. Respondent has been actively involved with the Philadelphia Bar Association, the North Philadelphia Weed and Seed Program (aims are to eliminate drug-related crime and improve the social and economic conditions of the community), and other legal and non-legal organizations, as more fully set forth in the attached document designated as "Exhibit A."

174. Respondent has filed a lawsuit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against B&L alleging that he is owed referral fees for cases that he originated that remained at B&L after Respondent's employment at B&L terminated. B&L has deposited into an escrow account Respondent's share of referral fees for cases he originated. B&L claims that it is entitled to a set-off against Respondent's share of the referral fees because, inter alia, Respondent converted client fees and referral fees that belonged to B&L. Respondent has agreed to notify B&L in writing that it is authorized to withdraw and receive the sum of $25,468.18 from the aforementioned escrow account. This amount equals the amount of monies that ODG has determined that Respondent converted from B&L in the matters that are referenced in the Joint Petition.

175. Respondent, through his attorneys, desires to bring to the attention of the three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that if the within disciplinary matter had proceeded to a disciplinary hearing, Respondent would have presented letters discussing Respondent's character and involvement in legal and non-legal organizations from the following members of the legal and non-legal community in the Philadelphia region: Lynne M. Abraham, former District Attorney of Philadelphia; JoAnne Epps, Dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law; Natalie Klyashtorny, Esquire; Richard Agins, Esquire; Evan S. Shingles, Esquire; Mitchell H. Klevan, Esquire; Senior Deputy Attorney General Nancy S. Hartsough; Gregory Cirillo, Esquire; Philadelphia Police Captain Joseph Bologna; Philadelphia Police Officer Tina Willis; and Jason Reiver. These letters are attached collectively as "Exhibit B."

176. Precedent suggests that Respondent's misconduct warrants a suspension of thirty months.

Respondent's matter is somewhat similar to, albeit distinguishable from, two cases, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Steven Robert Grayson, No. 95 DB 2007 (Recommendation of Three-Member Panel 11/14/07)(S.Ct. Order 3/20/08)(two-year suspension for converting over $35,000.00 in fees and costs belonging to Respondent's former employer over a thirty-three month period; in mitigation, Respondent Grayson had no record of discipline, cooperated, was remorseful, and made restitution) and office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Joan Gaughan Atlas, No. 171 DB 2001 (D.Bd. Rpt. 3/24/04)(S.Ct. Order 6/29/04)(three-year suspension for: converting approximately $35,000.00 in fees belonging to Respondent's former employer; commingling personal funds with fiduciary funds; failing, over a period of 44 months, to hold in trust client funds in several matters; making misrepresentations to her former employer; and filing false certifications with the Secretary's Office regarding her compliance with RPC 1.15; in mitigation, Respondent Atlas had no record of discipline and achieved and maintained sobriety in her recovery from alcoholism).

A comparison of these cases to Respondent's matter indicates that a thirty-month suspension is an appropriate sanction for Respondent's misconduct.

Like Respondent Grayson, Respondent Sigman has: converted a substantial amount of fees from his employer (over $25,000.00); engaged in misconduct over a lengthy period of time (twenty-four months); has no record of discipline; made restitution; and cooperated by admitting his misconduct.

However, there is an important distinguishing factor that suggests that a two-year suspension, as imposed in Grayson, would be too lenient. Respondent Sigman's misconduct is more egregious than Respondent Grayson's misconduct. Respondent Sigman's misconduct went beyond mere conversion of fees belonging to B&L. Respondent's misconduct also involved offering false testimony during a deposition (although two months after the deposition Respondent advised Mr. Ettenson and Mr. Brownstein that he made "certain mistakes" during the deposition), failing to disclose that Mr. Rayz had referred the Barg matter to B&L (thereby depriving Mr. Rayz of a referral fee of several thousand dollars from B&L), and providing the Westlaw password for B&L's Westlaw account to Ms. Tara D'Lutz, who used the account to accrue almost $3,700.00 of unauthorized charges (Ms. Tara D'Lutz's employer reimbursed B&L for her unauthorized charges).

Atlas and Respondent Sigman's matter resemble one another in that both matters involve not only conversion of substantial fees from their former employers, but other species of misconduct.

Yet, there are several significant dissimilarities between the matter at bar and the Atlas case that would warrant a modest downward departure from Atlas's three-year suspension. First, Respondent Sigman's misconduct is not quite as egregious as Respondent Atlas's misconduct. Respondent Atlas's misconduct occurred over forty-four months, while Respondent Sigman's misconduct occurred over twenty-four months. Although both Respondent Atlas and Respondent Sigman converted fees from their employers and made misrepresentations, Respondent Atlas also commingled her funds with fiduciary funds and failed to hold inviolate client funds. Second, Respondent Atlas did not offer in mitigation of discipline restitution, cooperation, remorse, and extensive contributions to a local bar association, as does Respondent Sigman.

In sum, the disciplinary cases of Grayson and Atlas support Petitioner and Respondent's joint recommendation for a thirty-month suspension.

177. After considering precedent and weighing the mitigating factors, Petitioner and Respondent submit that a thirty-month suspension is appropriate discipline for Respondent's misconduct.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent respectfully request that:

a. Pursuant to Rule 215(e) and 215(g), Pa.R.D.E., the three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board review and approve the above Joint Petition In Support Of Discipline On Consent and file its recommendation with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in which it is recommended that the Supreme Court enter an Order:
(1) suspending Respondent from the practice of law for a period of thirty months, and
(ii) directing Respondent to comply with all of the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.
b. Pursuant to Rule 215(i), the three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board order Respondent to pay the necessary expenses incurred in the investigation of this matter as a condition to the grant of the Petition and that all expenses be paid by Respondent before the imposition of discipline under Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Respectfully submitted,

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

PAUL J. KILLION

CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

By _______________________

Richard Hernandez

Disciplinary Counsel

By _______________________

Scott Philip Sigman, Esquire

Respondent

By _______________________

Barbara S. Rosenberg, Esquire

Counsel for Respondent

By _______________________

MarinL. Trichon, Esquire

Counsel for Respondent


Summaries of

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigman

DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 28, 2013
No. 43 DB 2012 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Feb. 28, 2013)
Case details for

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigman

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. SCOTT PHILIP SIGMAN…

Court:DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 28, 2013

Citations

No. 43 DB 2012 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Feb. 28, 2013)