Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby
| Decision Date | 05 February 1981 |
| Parties | OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. John T. GRIGSBY, III, Respondent. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Page 730
v.
John T. GRIGSBY, III, Respondent.
Decided Feb. 5, 1981.
Page 731
[493 Pa. 196] John W. Herron, Samuel D. Miller, III, Philadelphia, for petitioner.
L. Jackson Thomas, II, West Chester, for respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, C. J., and ROBERTS, LARSEN, FLAHERTY and KAUFFMAN, JJ.
LARSEN, Justice.
This attorney disciplinary proceeding presents the following questions: whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that John T. Grigsby, III (respondent) filed a sworn pleading which he knew was false; whether respondent's conduct violates Disciplinary Rule 1-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (hereinafter cited as DR 1-102); and whether disbarment is an appropriate sanction, considering respondent's history of disciplinary violations.
Respondent, a lawyer in the Philadelphia area since 1963, has a history of disciplinary infractions. In 1970, the Philadelphia Bar Association Committee of Censors (Committee) privately reprimanded respondent for failure to act competently because he mishandled a client's case during 1966-67. The Committee also noted that respondent's testimony at a hearing on the matter was misleading. In 1971, the Committee again privately reprimanded respondent for failure to act competently because he neglected a client's case during 1968-69.
Respondent has also been before this Court in a disciplinary proceeding which involved two separate incidents of misconduct, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, Disciplinary Board File No. 5 D.B. 76. In one incident, respondent filed a false petition seeking counsel fees in 1973. (He [493 Pa. 197] had been court-appointed counsel in a murder case tried in 1971-72.) The petition was fraudulent and was filed for the purpose of obtaining fees for work respondent did not perform. In the other incident, respondent filed a false complaint in connection with a tenant's negligence action against a landlord. The tenant's accident occurred on February 27, 1969, but the complaint which was filed on March 1, 1971 falsely showed the date of accident as March 1, 1969. Respondent had missed the statute of limitations, so he changed the date on the complaint after the tenant had signed it. The fraud was eventually discovered and the action was barred. On April 19, 1979 this Court publicly censured respondent for these incidents. 1
In this case, two charges have been brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Petitioner). Respondent admits one of the charges: filing a false sworn application for a driver's license. Because a 1968 judgment against respondent arising out of a car accident remained unsatisfied, respondent's driver's license (issued to "John T. Grigsby, III") was revoked in 1972. In 1975, a sworn application for a driver's license under the name "John T. Grigsby, Jr." In the application he falsely stated that no license had ever been issued to him, that no judgments against him arising out of a car accident were unsatisfied, and that no license issued to him had ever been revoked. A new license was issued in response to this application but revoked when the fraud was discovered.
Respondent denies the other charge that he filed a sworn pleading known to be false in connection with a garnishment proceeding. The judgment creditor who held the unsatisfied 1968 judgment sought to execute against respondent by garnishing his checking account. Respondent resisted the execution by filing a Petition to Stay Writ of Execution which stated that funds in the checking account belonged to clients and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Marcone
...legal system. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, 509 Pa. 573, 506 A.2d 872, 875 (1986). See also, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 493 Pa. 194, 425 A.2d 730, 733 (1981)(purpose of disciplinary system is to protect the public, the profession, and the courts). This momentous ......
-
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern
...the misconduct through direct evidence. The ethical violations may be proven solely by circumstantial evidence. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, supra; Lemisch's Case, 321 Pa. 110, 184 A. 72 (1936); Salus's Case, 321 Pa. 106, 184 A. 70 Id. at 579-80, 506 A.2d at 875. We will first......
-
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Shorall
...through direct evidence. The ethical violations may be proven solely by circumstantial evidence. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, [493 Pa. 194, 425 A.2d 730 (1981) ]. Lemisch's Case, 321 Pa. 110, 184 A. 72 (1936); Salus's Case, 321 Pa. 106, 184 A. 70 Stern, supra, 515 Pa. at 72, 5......
-
Oxman, In re
...and the judicial process. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lewis, 493 Pa. 519, 426 A.2d 1138 (1981); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 493 Pa. 194, 425 A.2d 730 (1981). As we observed in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lewis, supra, quoting Maryland State Bar Association, In......
-
To Catch a Criminal, to Cleanse a Profession: Exposing Deceptive Practices by Attorneys to the Sunlight of Public Debate and Creating an Express Investigation Deception Exception to the Aba Model Rules of Professional Conduct
...judicial system; a license to practice law requires allegiance and fidelity to truth.") (citing Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grisby, 425 A.2d 730, 733 (Pa. 53. Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 1.2(d) (2007). 54. See id. pmbl. ¶ 10, R. 1.16(a), R. 1.2(d), R. 4.1 cmt. 3. 55. Id. R. 1.6 c......