A Good Day For Allegedly Bad Lawyers

In the case of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney, [Docket No. Withheld by Court] (Pa. Feb. 12, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.) (concurring Opinion by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the standard of proof in a disciplinary hearing for attorney misconduct and opted for a higher burden.

According to the Opinion, prior to this ruling, the previously accepted standard of proof of the disciplinary cases against attorneys was “a preponderance of the evidence through clear and satisfactory evidence.”

In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the burden of proof of disciplinary cases going forward should be “clear and convincing evidence.”

In ruling in this fashion, the court noted that “[a]ttorney disciplinary proceedings are not civil disputes for money damages, and the public’s and the attorney’s interests are not clearly minimal.” The court otherwise noted that “[d]isciplinary proceedings are not strictly civil nor criminal in nature, but rather have been styled as ‘quasi criminal.’”

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  A copy of Justice Wecht's Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Pa. High Court Rules in Favor of Higher Standard for Proving Attorney Misconduct,” By Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer (Feb. 26, 2025).