In re Ostrowski, 032217 PASCDC, 1556-3

Docket Nº:1556 Disciplinary Docket 3
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:In the Matter of ANDREW J. OSTROWSKI PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 135 DB 2008
Case Date:March 22, 2017
Court:Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

In the Matter of ANDREW J. OSTROWSKI

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

No. 1556 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 135 DB 2008

Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania

March 22, 2017

Attorney Registration No. 66420, Dauphin County

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2017, the Petition for Reinstatement is denied. 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).

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 February 9, 2010, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended Andrew J. Ostrowski from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. Mr. Ostrowski filed a Petition for Reinstatement on September 4, 2015. Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Response to Petition for Reinstatement on November 2, 2015.

A prehearing conference was held on December 10, 2015. A reinstatement hearing was held on January 28, 2016, before a District III Hearing Committee comprised of Chair Joanne C. Ludwikowski, Esquire, and Members Larry S. Keiser, Esquire and Jeffrey J. Malak, Esquire. Petitioner appeared pro se.

Following the submissions of briefs by the parties, the Hearing Committee filed a Report on June 8, 2016, and recommended that the Petition for Reinstatement be denied.

Petitioner filed a Brief on Exceptions on June 29, 2016, and requested oral argument before the Disciplinary Board.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Brief Opposing Petitioner's Exceptions on July 14, 2016.

A Motion to Reopen the Record was filed by Petitioner on August 2, 2016. Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Response to Motion to Reopen Record on August 23, 2016. By Order dated August 29, 2016, the Board denied the Motion to Reopen the Record.

On September 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's August 29, 2016 Order.

Oral argument was held before a three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board on September 28, 2016.

Petitioner filed an Application to Reopen/Supplement the Record on September 29, 2016 and an Addendum on October 7, 2016.

On October 11, 2016, Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Response to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Application to Reopen/Supplement the Record.

Bu Order dated October 13, 2016, Petitioner's Motion to Reopen/Supplement the Record was denied by the Board.

The Disciplinary Board adjudicated this matter at the meeting on October 13, 2016.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board makes the following findings:

1. Petitioner is Andrew J. Ostrowski. He was born in 1965 and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth in 1992. His attorney registration address is P.O. Box 61335, Harrisburg, PA 17106. Petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

2. After admission to the bar, Petitioner practiced at law firms for approximately nine years and thereafter practiced either as a solo practitioner or in partnership with another lawyer until 2010. ODC-24; Reinstatement Questionnaire No. 2(d); NT. 17.

3. By Order dated February 9, 2010, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended Petitioner from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. ODC-6.

4. Petitioner was suspended for failing to provide competent representation to a client, failing to provide an accounting to that client or refund the unearned fees until contacted by Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and failing to stay current with Continuing Legal Education ("CLE") credits, resulting in his transfer to inactive status, following which he did not meet his obligation to file a statement of compliance with the Board, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 217(e). ODC-1.

5. Petitioner was reciprocally suspended in the United States District Court for the Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. ODC-24.

6. Prior to the disciplinary matter from which he seeks reinstatement, Petitioner received informal admonitions in 2004 and 2006 based upon clients' claims of neglect. ODC-1.

7. Petitioner has demonstrated no remorse and has failed to recognize the misconduct that led to his suspension. He has denied that his misconduct and the subsequent discipline rendered him unfit to practice law. ODC-24.

8. Subsequent to his suspension and prior to filing his Petition for Reinstatement in 2015, Petitioner ran for Congress in 2014. On his campaign materials, Petitioner wrote, "I was suspended because I am a civil rights lawyer who became a target...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP