Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baik, 192 DB 2016
| Decision Date | 07 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 192 DB 2016,192 DB 2016 |
| Parties | OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. HAE YEON BAIK Respondent |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Attorney Registration No. 71693
(Philadelphia)
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2016, in accordance with Rule 215(f), Pa.R.D.E., the three-member Panel of the Disciplinary Board having reviewed and approved the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed in the above captioned matter; it is
ORDERED that the said HAE YEON BAIK be subjected to a PUBLIC REPRIMAND by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as provided in Rule 204(a) and Rule 205(c)(9) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement.
BY THE BOARD:
/s/_________
Board Chair
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
Attest:
/s/_________
Marcee D. Sloan
Asst. Secretary of the Board
The Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Attorney Registration No. 71693
(Philadelphia)
Hae Yeon Baik, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your professional peers and members of the public for the imposition of a Public Reprimand. It is an unpleasant task to publicly reprimand one who has been granted the privilege of membership in the bar of this Commonwealth. Yet as repugnant as this task may be, it has been deemed necessary that you receive this public discipline.
Ms. Baik, you agreed to enter into a joint recommendation for consent discipline and you further agreed that pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5(b)(2), you violated the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct because your misconduct principally occurred in New Jersey and had a predominant effect in New Jersey. At all times relevant, you were admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and were not admitted to practice law in New Jersey.
Commencing in 2012, you undertook the representation of New Jersey residents Moo Hyon and Eun Hyon in the purchase of real property and in the subsequent rental of that property, located in Camden County, New Jersey. You failed to disclose to the Hyons that neither you nor your law firm was eligible to practice law in New Jersey, and neither you nor your firm could provide any legal services to the Hyons in their NewJersey real estate matter. However, you did not affirmatively represent to the Hyons that you were a member of the New Jersey bar. In 2012 through 2014, you provided legal services to the Hyons in the real estate matter. You failed to communicate to your clients the basis or rate of your fee, in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation. Similarly, in a separate bankruptcy proceeding, you provided legal services to the Hyons and failed to provide a written fee agreement to your clients.
In connection with the real estate matter, you received a check for $9,400.00. Since you did not maintain a trust account or any other type of account in New Jersey, you deposited the check into your Pennsylvania bank account without authorization of the Hyons, to whom the check had been made payable. You also deposited rent checks you received on behalf of the Hyons into your Pennsylvania bank account, and, without authorization of the Hyons, took as legal fees a portion of the rental proceeds paid to your clients. You failed to comply with New Jersey court rules that required you to maintain trust and business accounts in a New Jersey financial institution and to hold the funds in such accounts. You failed to ensure that your clients' funds were properly maintained, with proper account records as required by New Jersey law.
Your actions in regard to the Hyons' New Jersey real estate matter constituted the unauthorized practice of law in New Jersey, in violation of the criminal laws of that jurisdiction.
Your conduct in this matter has violated the following New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct:
We note that you have a record of discipline in Pennsylvania consisting of an Informal Admonition imposed in 2014 for failing to comply with a request by your clients to provide them with an itemized bill for services rendered and an accounting.
You have a record of discipline in New Jersey. By Order of March 3, 2016, the Supreme Court of New Jersey publicly reprimanded you for your misconduct in connection with your representation of the Hyons in their New Jersey real estate matter.
In mitigation, we have considered that you admitted your misconduct by self-reporting and cooperated with Office of Disciplinary Counsel. You expressed remorse and understand that you must be disciplined for your misconduct. You refunded to the Hyons the amount you had previously collected for the services you provided in the New Jersey real estate matter. Currently, you employ two New Jersey licensed attorneys to handle New Jersey matters and your law firm is in compliance with the New Jersey Supreme Court requirements as to trust and business accounts.
Ms. Baik, your conduct in this matter is now fully public. This Public Reprimand is a matter of public record.
As you stand before the Board today, we remind you that you have a continuing obligation to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. This Public Reprimand is proof that Pennsylvania lawyers will not be permitted to engage in conduct that falls below professional standards. Be mindful that any future dereliction will subject you to disciplinary action.
This Public Reprimand shall be posted on the Disciplinary Board's website at www.padisciplinaryboard.org.
/s/_________
Designated Member
The Disciplinary Board of the
Administered by a designated panel of three Members of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on January 4, 2017.
The undersigned, Respondent in the above proceeding, herewith acknowledges that the above Public Reprimand was administered in her presence and in the presence of the designated panel of The Disciplinary Board at 1601 Market Street, Suite 3320, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on January 4, 2017.
/s/_________
Hae Yeon Baik
(Philadelphia)
JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E.
Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, by Paul J. Killion, Esquire, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and by Richard Hernandez, Esquire, Disciplinary Counsel, and Respondent, Hae Yeon Baik, file this Joint Petition In Support of Discipline On Consent Under Rule 215(d) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement ("the Joint Petition") and respectfully represent that:
1. Respondent, Hae Yeon Baik, was born in 1959 and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on April 4, 1994. Respondent was assigned Attorney Registration No. 71693 and is currently registered as active.
2. According to attorney registration records, Respondent's office address is 1100 Vine Street, Units C8 & C9, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
3. Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 201(a)(1), Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
4. Respondent has agreed to enter into a joint recommendation for consent discipline.
6. Based on the factual allegations set forth in the Joint Petition, Respondent agrees that application of PA RPC 8.5(b)(2) would dictate that any disciplinary charges brought against Respondent in Pennsylvania would be based on Res...
To continue reading
Request your trial