Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Name	Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Formation	1975
Founder	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Purpose	Attorney discipline and ethical enforcement
Headquarters	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Region served	Pennsylvania
Leader title	Chair
Leader name	Robert J. Colville
Website	(official)

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is an adjudicative body established by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to oversee professional conduct of attorneys admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. It operates within the regulatory framework created by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the court’s rules to investigate complaints, prosecute alleged violations, and recommend sanctions to the court, interacting with institutions such as the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the United States Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

History

The Board was created following reforms inspired by national debates involving the American Bar Association and state judiciaries, emerging alongside initiatives from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and responses to cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and professional standards advanced after the Watergate scandal. Its development paralleled rulemaking in jurisdictions such as the New York State Unified Court System, the California Supreme Court, and the Ohio Supreme Court, and it has evolved through judicial orders from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and statutory intersections with the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Over time the Board’s procedures have been influenced by decisions from the United States Supreme Court, precedent from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and comparative reforms in state bodies such as the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers.

Jurisdiction and Authority

Authority rests in an order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and professional rules like the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, with appeals directed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and occasionally to federal tribunals including the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or the United States Supreme Court. The Board exercises jurisdiction over attorneys admitted by the Pennsylvania Bar Admission Commission and those appearing pro hac vice before tribunals such as the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, subject to reciprocal discipline protocols with other state high courts such as the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Illinois Supreme Court. Interactions sometimes involve law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation when matters implicate criminal referrals, and regulatory overlap with agencies such as the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

Organization and Membership

The Board comprises volunteer and appointed members drawn from the bench and bar, including former judges from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and practitioners with ties to firms such as K&L Gates, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and law schools like University of Pennsylvania Law School and Temple University Beasley School of Law. Leadership includes a Chair and panels that mirror judicial standing committees found in institutions like the United States Judicial Conference and the Judicial Conference of the United States. Membership selection involves appointments by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and coordination with legal organizations such as the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the Allegheny County Bar Association, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and the American Bar Foundation. Administrative support is provided by staff with professional ties to offices including the Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Complaint and Investigation Process

Complaints originate from individuals, law firms, judiciary members, and entities like the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission when attorney conduct intersects with regulated practice; complaints may also come from disciplinary counsel offices modeled on the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in other states. Upon receipt, the Board’s investigative staff utilizes procedures comparable to those in the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and coordination mechanisms with the Pennsylvania Innocence Project or public defender offices including the Federal Public Defender to assess allegations. Investigations follow rules similar to the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar and may involve subpoenas, document review, and witness interviews with parties ranging from solo practitioners to attorneys affiliated with firms like Drinker Biddle & Reath or corporations such as PPG Industries.

Hearings and Sanctions

Formal hearings before hearing committees mirror adversarial processes found in tribunals like the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and can result in a range of sanctions including reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, subject to final review and approval by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Sanctions have been shaped by precedent from cases heard in forums such as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and occasionally involve restitution orders interacting with civil courts like the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The Board’s recommendations take into account standards articulated by organizations such as the American Bar Association and legal scholarship from institutions like the Harvard Law School and Yale Law School.

Notable Cases and Impact

The Board has processed matters involving high-profile attorneys and issues that intersect with entities like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Department of Justice, and statewide offices including the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Its decisions have influenced disciplinary practices in other jurisdictions, drawing commentary from scholars affiliated with University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and publications such as the ABA Journal and The Pennsylvania Lawyer. Cases reviewed by the Board have sometimes led to appeals in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, reciprocal discipline actions with courts like the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Illinois, and analyses by commentators at institutions such as Pace Law School and the Brookings Institution. The Board’s work affects admission and practice policies of bodies including the Pennsylvania Bar Admission Commission, the National Association for Law Placement, and major legal employers such as Ballard Spahr.

Category:Legal organizations based in Pennsylvania