Legal Opinion
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided July 8, 1998No. 25 DB 95PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CAPPY, Justice:
In this appeal from a decision of the Disciplinary Board (Board), we address the element of scienter necessary to establish a prima facie violation of Rule of Professional Conduct (Rule) 8.4(c) where the allegation of professional misconduct is misrepresentation.1 We now hold that a prima facie violation of Rule 8.4(c) is shown where the record establishes that the misrepresentation was knowingly made, or made with reckless ignorance of the truth or falsity of the representation. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, the decision of the Board is reversed…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gibbs v. ErnstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- B & B Asphalt Co. v. T. S. McShane Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McMillianSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- In Re: Robert B. SurrickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
- Fiore v. WhiteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SurrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. PriceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.