×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Pennsylvania Attorney’s Disciplinary Matter Exempt from Disclosure
Herbert Somerson, a Pennsylvania lawyer, filed a malpractice action against Alvin Bonders and Johnny Taxicab Co. in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Somerson had previously negotiated a disciplinary settlement agreement concerning his practice before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission). Bonders filed a motion with the Commission for disclosure of the agreement to use in the malpractice action.
The Commission found that Rule 402 of the state Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement exempts from disclosure of records in attorney disciplinary proceedings conducted under Public Utility Code 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(f). Since Somerson’s disciplinary action was conducted under § 332(f), it was confidential, and Bonders’ motion was denied. See: Bonders et al; Petition for Discovery of Commission Documents, 66 Pa. DUC 451 (1988).
The Commission found that Rule 402 of the state Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement exempts from disclosure of records in attorney disciplinary proceedings conducted under Public Utility Code 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(f). Since Somerson’s disciplinary action was conducted under § 332(f), it was confidential, and Bonders’ motion was denied. See: Bonders et al; Petition for Discovery of Commission Documents, 66 Pa. DUC 451 (1988).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Bonders et al; Petition for Discovery of Commission Documents
| Year | 1988 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 66 Pa. DUC 451 (1988) |
| Level | Trial Court |