In re Gentile, 042717 PASCDC, 1819-3
|Docket Nº:||1819 Disciplinary Docket 3|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||In the Matter of CHARLES C. GENTILE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 87 DB 2010|
|Judge Panel:||Tracey McCants Lewis, Board Member|
|Case Date:||April 27, 2017|
|Court:||Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania|
Allegheny County Attorney Registration No. 18237.
AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2017, 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).
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
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. I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
By Order dated July 19, 2010, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disbarred Charles C. Gentile on consent. On December 17, 2015, Mr. Gentile filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the bar. On February 3, 2016, Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Response in opposition to the Petition for Reinstatement.
A reinstatement hearing was held on April 7, 2016, before a District IV Hearing Committee comprised of Chair Philip K. Kontul, Esquire, and Members Angela M. Heim, Esquire and Regina C. Wilson, Esquire. Petitioner was represented by Craig E. Simpson, Esquire. Petitioner presented the testimony of five witnesses, testified on his own behalf, and introduced four exhibits into evidence. Office of Disciplinary Counsel introduced five exhibits into evidence, but did not present any testimonial evidence.
Following the submission of briefs by the parties, the Hearing Committee filed a Report on August 29, 2016, and recommended that the Petition for Reinstatement be denied.
Petitioner filed a Brief on Exceptions to the Hearing Committee Report on September 15, 2016, and requested oral argument before the Board. Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Brief Opposing Petitioner's Exceptions on September 23, 2016.
A three-member panel of the Board held oral argument on January 5, 2017.
The Board adjudicated this matter at the meeting held on January 12, 2017. II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board makes the following findings:
1. Petitioner is Charles C. Gentile. He was born in 1947 and was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1973. Petitioner's attorney registration address is 333 Chalkhill-Ohiopyle Road, Ohiopyle, Fayette County, PA 15470. Petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
2. On April 30, 2010, Petitioner submitted a Statement of Resignation pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 215. Reinstatement Questionnaire ("RQ").
3. By Order dated July 19, 2010, effective August 18, 2010, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disbarred Petitioner on consent. RQ, Attachments 1 and 2.
4. Petitioner's disbarment on consent was based upon his misappropriation of entrusted funds from his PNC Bank IOLTA Account on numerous dates throughout 2008, such that it was deficient in amounts ranging from $753.04 to $106, 571.77 of the total entrustments, and from his Centra Bank Escrow Account, such that it was deficient on numerous dates throughout 2008 and 2009 in amounts ranging from $3, 239.94 to $8, 487.18 of the total entrustments. RQ No. 3.
5. Following Petitioner's disbarment, he notified his clients of his inability to practice law, as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. NT. 34.
6. Petitioner filed a required compliance statement with the Secretary of the Board on August 25, 2010, indicating that he complied with the provisions of the July 19, 2010 Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and with applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and Disciplinary Board Rules. NT. 34; RQ No. 6(c).
7. Petitioner testified credibly on his own behalf.
8. Prior to his disbarment, Petitioner had a law office located in Uniontown, Fayette County, from which he engaged in a general practice of law. NT. 13.
9. At the time of the reinstatement hearing, Petitioner and his wife had been married for forty-four years. In July 2005, Petitioner's wife was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's follicular lymphoma, a rare cancer, which required surgery and a lengthy treatment period. Much of Petitioner's wife's treatment was not covered by Petitioner's basic health insurance plan, and in order to pay for the treatment, Petitioner testified that he exhausted his savings accounts, retirement savings, and a Certificate of Deposit, and charged the maximum amount on his credit cards. Petitioner and his wife refinanced their house and sold a building they owned. Petitioner estimated that he spent in excess of $300, 000.00 to $400, 000.00 in out-of-pocket costs for his wife's treatment. NT. 25-28.
10. Petitioner contemplated filing for bankruptcy but was hesitant to do so because "some of the creditors were people that were treating my wife." NT. 26.
11. Because he was in dire financial circumstances, Petitioner decided to use entrusted funds in his escrow accounts to keep up with medical bills. NT. 26, 30.
12. At the time he was engaged in the misconduct, Petitioner tried to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP