Opinion
No. 615 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 116 DB 2000
12-29-2015
In the Matter of JEFFREY MARC ROBINSON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2016, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted. Petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement. See Pa.R.D.E. 218(f).
Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in consideration or decision of this matter.
Messrs. Justice Baer and Dougherty dissent. A True Copy Patricia Nicola
As Of 1/22/2016 Attest: /s/_________
Chief Cierk
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Attorney Registration No. 45598 (Allegheny 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 218(c)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania submits its findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with respect to the above captioned Petition for Reinstatement.
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
On December 9, 2014, Jeffrey Marc Robinson filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the bar following his disbarment on consent by Order of the Supreme Court dated October 2, 2000. Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Response to Petition on February 9, 2015, in which it stated its opposition to reinstatement. Petitioner filed a Supplement to Petition for Reinstatement on March 23, 2015.
A reinstatement hearing was held on May 4, 2015, before a District IV Hearing Committee comprised of Chair David Harouse, Esquire and Members James R. Burn, Jr., Esquire and Ansley Westbrook, Esquire. Petitioner was represented by Robert O. Lampl, Esquire. Petitioner offered the testimony of four witnesses and testified on his own behalf. Petitioner introduced twenty-five (25) Exhibits. Office of Disciplinary Counsel cross-examined Petitioner's witnesses, but called no witnesses and introduced no additional evidence.
Following the submission of Briefs by the parties, the Hearing Committee filed a Report on September 25, 2015 and recommended that the Petition for Reinstatement be granted.
No Briefs on Exception were filed by the parties.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting on October 22, 2015.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board makes the following findings:
1. Petitioner is Jeffrey Marc Robinson. He was born in 1957 and was admitted to the bar in Pennsylvania in 1986. His attorney registration address is 4319 Wren Place, Wexford, PA 15090. Petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
2. Following his admission to the Pennsylvania Bar, Petitioner worked for Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, a Pittsburgh law firm, where he practiced tax law and business litigation. Subsequent to this, he entered into private practice with two other attorneys where he remained until October 2000. N.T. 12.
3. By Order of October 2, 2000, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disbarred Petitioner on consent. Petitioner's conduct involved his misappropriation of entrusted funds of a client, forgery, filing of false pleadings, and the unauthorized practice of law while on inactive status.
4. Following his disbarment, Petitioner began working for Frank Zokaites, a real estate developer, in 2002. Petitioner continues to work full-time for Mr. Zokaites, handling budgeting and business plans and working with subcontractors. N.T. 11, 22-25.
5. Petitioner met Mr. Zokaites through their mutual banker. At the time, Petitioner was involved in a land development project and was "in over his head, operationally and financially." (N.T. 14.) He brought Mr. Zokaites in as a partner, ultimately selling his interest in the development to Mr. Zokaites. N.T. 15, 59, 60.
6. Petitioner is divorced and has full custody of his daughter, Lilly, who is ten years old and has lived with Petitioner on a full-time basis since 2009. N.T. 16, 18.
7. Petitioner's ex-wife suffers from a medical disorder and lives in Florida. Due to this debilitating condition, Petitioner has provided financial support to his ex-wife for the past six years. N.T. 27, 28.
8. Petitioner is involved in all aspects of Lilly's life. He explained that he can never repeat his prior actions which resulted in his disbarment because Lilly relies upon him and learns from him. (N.T. 13) Petitioner described his daily routine in detail, in order to demonstrate to the Hearing Committee that "there's just simply no room for being the person that I once was, there's no room for me to do anything wrong, I can't...it just doesn't exist anymore...that person is not here anymore." N.T. 20, 21.
9. Petitioner is actively engaged in community service work. In addition to providing families with food at the North Hills Food Bank on major holidays, Petitioner and his daughter visit elderly individuals at the Vincentian Home "several times a year." N.T. 21.
10. Petitioner is involved in a YMCA program called Indian Princesses that fosters relationships between fathers and daughters. N.T. 21, 22.
11. Petitioner helps raise funds for the Epilepsy Foundation. N.T. 56, 57.
12. Petitioner has fulfilled the Continuing Legal Education requirements necessary for reinstatement. Petitioner went beyond the minimum 36 hours and took 48 hours of CLE. Petitioner explained that he took more CLE requirements than necessary to show his "desire to be reinstated" to the practice of law. N.T. 24.
13. Petitioner kept apprised of the law by reviewing the Pittsburgh Legal Journal and doing internet legal research on various topics involving construction and mechanic's liens, confession of judgment, contracts, family matters and civil rights. Reinstatement Questionnaire No. 19(b)
14. Petitioner owed $7,000.00 to the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security. Petitioner saved money for two years from his earnings in order to pay the Security Fund in full. N.T. 25; Exhibit 4.
15. If reinstated, Petitioner plans to work with Jeffrey Hulton, Esquire, an attorney in general legal practice with an emphasis on litigation. N.T. 29.
16. Petitioner cooperated with Office of Disciplinary Counsel during the reinstatement process and has made himself available for questions. N.T. 28.
17. Petitioner has accepted full responsibility for his actions and has expressed genuine remorse for his wrongdoing. Petitioner stated "I shamed myself, my profession, my family. I breached an ethical trust that was placed upon me by being a lawyer...I realize that it's something that can never ever happen again...Yes, I'm very remorseful and sorry for what happened." N.T. 13, 14.
18. Between 2003 and 2009, Petitioner was involved in criminal matters on three occasions:
a. 2003 conviction for bad checks in Westmoreland County, sentenced to one year probation plus restitution;
b. 2005 conviction for defrauding secured creditor in Allegheny County, sentenced to two years of probation;
c. 2009 conviction for providing false identification to law enforcement during a traffic stop in Florida, sentenced to probation plus community service.
N.T. 29, 30-31, 38-42.
19. Petitioner did not report any of his convictions to the Disciplinary Board, as he claimed he was not aware of the reporting requirements. N.T. 42-43.
20. Petitioner accepted full responsibility for his actions in these criminal matters, which were misdemeanor violations. N.T. 53.
21. Petitioner explained that the first two convictions occurred soon after his disbarment during a time period when he had lost his ability to earn a livelihood. He had no job and no money, and due to the extreme financial distress he was under, he issued several checks that were returned as NSF. N.T. 15.
22. Petitioner explained that the third conviction occurred in 2009 and resulted from a traffic stop wherein Petitioner panicked because his wife and daughter were in the car. He corrected his misrepresentation to the authorities within five minutes. N.T. 31, 32.
23. Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses.
24. Frank Zokaites is a self-employed real estate builder and developer who resides in Wexford, Pennsylvania. He has known Petitioner since 2001 and has employed him since approximately 2003. N.T. 59.
25. At the time that Mr. Zokaites met Petitioner, Petitioner was working on a land development project in Jefferson Borough. Mr. Zokaites indicated that Petitioner was in "over his head," was undercapitalized, and was not a skilled developer. At that point, Mr. Zokaites became Petitioner's partner on the project. N.T. 59, 60.
26. Mr. Zokaites was aware of the facts of Petitioner's disbarment in 2000 and actually read the charges and reviewed the record. Mr. Zokaites was also aware of Petitioner's criminal convictions post-disbarment. N.T. 64.
27. Mr. Zokaites believes that Petitioner is an ethical and honest person and has a reputation in the community as being ethical and honest. Mr. Zokaites further testified that Petitioner has dealt with subcontractors, who trust Petitioner. N.T. 61.
28. Mr. Zokaites has no reservations about recommending Petitioner for reinstatement to the bar and does not believe that Petitioner would ever engage in unethical conduct again. N.T. 62.
29. Mr. Zokaites stated that despite Petitioner's troubles over the years, he is a different person today. N.T. 62.
30. Dana Zokaites is the wife of Frank Zokaites and has known Petitioner for approximately thirteen years. She is aware of the facts surrounding Petitioner's disbarment, including his financial, personal and legal challenges. N.T. 54, 55.
31. Mrs. Zokaites believes Petitioner is "of the most moral and ethical character that I've seen in a long time." (N.T. 55.) Petitioner has a reputation in the community for being ethical, honest and moral. N.T. 55.
32. Mrs. Zokaites has personally witnessed the significant changes in Petitioner, and stated that "I think raising Lilly as a single parent is probably the number one thing that-that's changed Jeff as to who he is. In order to teach her to be a responsible human being, he's had to demonstrate that himself." N.T. 55.
33. Mrs. Zokaites indicated that not only has Petitioner worked for her husband for approximately thirteen years, he has also assisted Mrs. Zokaites with her son, who suffers from epilepsy. Petitioner has helped and encouraged her son, and has attended different epilepsy-related events with her son. N.T. 56.
34. Mrs. Zokaites believes Petitioner would be an asset to the Bar and she would, without hesitation, allow him to handle her money. N.T. 56.
35. Evelyn Favish owns a real estate and management company and has known Petitioner for over forty years. She is aware of the facts of Petitioner's disbarment. N.T. 70.
36. Mrs. Favish testified to the circumstances of Petitioner's marriage and the raising of his child as a single parent. She believes that he is doing a "very admirable and wonderful job" in the raising of his daughter. N.T. 70.
37. Mrs. Favish considers Petitioner to be honest, moral and very remorseful for his conduct. N.T. 71.
38. Mrs. Favish would not hesitate to let Petitioner handle her money. N.T. 71.
39. Jeffrey Hulton, Esquire was admitted to the bar in Pennsylvania in 1987 and has known Petitioner for approximately thirteen years. N.T. 72, 73.
40. Mr. Hulton has done legal work for Mr. Zokaites and has become "very close friends" with Petitioner. N.T. 73.
41. Mr. Hulton is aware of the facts concerning Petitioner's disbarment. N.T. 73.
42. Mr. Hulton opined that Petitioner has a reputation in the community as being ethical and honest. N.T. 74.
43. Mr. Hulton has no reservations about recommending Petitioner for reinstatement to the bar. N.T. 74.
44. When asked whether Petitioner is remorseful, Mr. Hulton answered that "there is no question about it, he is." Mr. Hulton believes that Petitioner is truly sorry for what he has done. N.T. 75.
45. Mr. Hulton has no reservations about allowing Petitioner to handle his money. N.T. 75.
46. When asked about the possible reinstatement, Mr. Hulton stated that he would "absolutely" hire Petitioner as an attorney based upon his experience, reputation and knowledge. N.T. 76.
47. Mr. Hulton believes that it "would be a tragedy" if Petitioner is not reinstated after all these years. N.T. 76.
48. Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not offer any witnesses in rebuttal to the witnesses called by Petitioner.
49. In addition to the four witnesses called to testify, Petitioner offered into evidence twenty-five (25) exhibits, including nine (9) letters of support and recommendations from members of Petitioner's community.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The misconduct for which Petitioner was disbarred is not so egregious as to preclude the consideration of his Petition for Reinstatement. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, 506 A.2d 872 (Pa. 1986).
2. Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a sufficient period of time has passed since the misconduct. In re Verlin, 731 A.2d 600 (Pa.1999)
3. Petitioner has met his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Rule 218(c)(3), Pa.R.D.E.
4. Petitioner has met his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that his resumption of the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be neither detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest. Rule 218(c)(3).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks reinstatement to the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania following his disbarment on consent by Order of the Supreme Court dated October 2, 2000.
The threshold issue in this matter is whether the misconduct that resulted in Petitioner's disbarment was so egregious that his reinstatement would have a detrimental effect upon the integrity and standing of the bar or would be subversive of the public interest. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, 506 A.2d 872 (Pa. 1986).
Petitioner was disbarred on consent because he engaged in misappropriation of entrusted funds, forgery, filing of false pleadings, and the unauthorized practice of law while on inactive status. There is no doubt that Petitioner's misconduct was serious and that his disbarment was the appropriate sanction. Nevertheless, we find that Petitioner's misconduct was not so egregious that it should prohibit Petitioner's reinstatement. Petitioner's misconduct is similar to that of other attorneys who have been disbarred and who have sought and been granted reinstatement. See, In re Greenberg, 749 A.2d 434 (Pa. 2000) (misappropriation of two million dollars and commission of perjury in a bankruptcy not so egregious as to warrant permanent disbarment); In re Perrone, 777 A.2d 413 (Pa. 2001) (disbarred attorney's misconduct involving false and misleading fee petitions to obtain payment of legal services was not so deplorable as to preclude reinstatement).
Once the Keller threshold is passed, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in the Commonwealth and that his readmission would not have a detrimental impact on the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice or be subversive of the public interest. Rule 218(c)(3), Pa.R.D.E. To that end Petitioner must prove that his post-disbarment conduct and efforts at qualitative rehabilitation were sufficient to dissipate the detrimental impact of his conduct on the public trust. In re Verlin, 731 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1999).
Office of Disciplinary Counsel submits that evidence of Petitioner's conduct since his disbarment demonstrates that he has not met his burden of proof. Beginning in 2003 through 2009, Petitioner had three criminal convictions. He did not report any of these convictions to the Disciplinary Board. The first, in 2003 in Westmoreland County, was for a bad check charge. The second, in 2005 in Allegheny County, was for defrauding secured creditors. The third, in 2009 in Florida, was for driving under suspension and giving false identification to police. Petitioner was sentenced to probation in each of these criminal matters.
Petitioner offered credible and compelling testimony as to the circumstances in his life that led to these convictions and the changes he has made to prevent the occurrence of such criminal conduct in the future. Petitioner separated his post-disbarment life into three phases. The first phase occurred immediately after disbarment in 2000 and continued for several years, as he experienced complete and total financial turmoil due to the loss of his law license and his ability to earn a living. Petitioner described this as a very difficult time in his life. Because of extreme financial distress, Petitioner issued several checks that were returned as NSF. The convictions in 2003 and 2005 arose from these events.
The second phase of Petitioner's life was a bit more stable, as he obtained steady employment with Mr. Zokaites, got married and had a child. Unfortunately, the marriage was troubled and only lasted a couple of years. Petitioner's ex-wife moved to Florida and Petitioner assumed custody of their daughter. The 2009 conviction occurred in Florida. Petitioner explained that he panicked when stopped by the authorities because his wife and daughter were in the car, but he quickly corrected his misrepresentation. Petitioner has taken full responsibility for his actions and is very remorseful. His reason for not reporting the convictions to the Board is simply that he did not know he had an obligation to do so. While he understands that he should have known to do so, it does not appear that he was intentionally hiding the convictions from the Board.
The self-described third phase of Petitioner's life since disbarment began in 2009, with Petitioner acting as a single parent and raising his daughter. By all accounts, this has been a polarizing event that has genuinely impacted Petitioner's perspective. Petitioner's realization that he is solely responsible for raising his young daughter has changed his life. He wants his daughter to be an ethical, moral and honest person, and in order for that to happen, Petitioner understands that he must conduct himself to those standards. In addition to his work and a busy routine with his daughter, Petitioner has been very involved in community activities, such as the food bank, Vincentian Home, YMCA and the Epilepsy Foundation. Petitioner indicated that there is "simply no room" for the person he used to be.
Petitioner's witnesses offered credible and compelling testimony that Petitioner deeply regrets his misconduct and has made significant changes in his life since disbarment. Each of the witnesses particularly mentioned Petitioner's status as a single father raising his daughter and how that responsibility became a turning point in Petitioner's life. These witnesses trust Petitioner and have confidence that he will be an asset to the Pennsylvania Bar. In addition to live witnesses, Petitioner introduced letters of recommendation from people who know Petitioner from all walks of life. Each recommendation attested to Petitioner's moral character and his rehabilitation.
Petitioner has shown his commitment to the practice of law by fulfilling his Continuing Legal Education credits in excess of the number required for reinstatement, and by maintaining his currency in the law through reading legal periodicals and conducting legal research on the internet. Petitioner reimbursed the Lawyers Fund for Client Security in full. Through his employment with Mr. Zokaites, Petitioner met Attorney Jeffrey Hulton and plans to practice law with Mr. Hulton upon reinstatement.
The Board is aware of the serious nature of Petitioner's misconduct and the basis for his disbarment; however, our review of the record persuades us that Petitioner's convictions during disbarment should not prevent his reinstatement. He was sorry and remorseful for the breaches of ethical obligation and conduct and has accepted full responsibility for his underlying actions and his criminal actions post-disbarment. Petitioner has been removed from the practice of law for approximately fifteen years. No valid purpose is served by prolonging Petitioner's disbarment. The totality of the record before us unequivocally demonstrates that Petitioner has been rehabilitated, has learned from his behavior, is fit to practice law in Pennsylvania, and will not pose a threat to the public interest.
The Board recommends that the Petition for Reinstatement from disbarment be granted.
RECOMMENDATION
The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously recommends that Petitioner, Jeffrey Marc Robinson, be reinstated to the practice of law.
The Board further recommends that, pursuant to Rule 218(f), Pa.R.D.E., Petitioner be directed to pay the necessary expenses incurred in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.
Respectfully submitted,
THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
By:/s/_________
Brian John Cali, Board Member Date:12/29/15 Board Members Porges and Cordisco did not participate in the adjudication.