THE COURTS
PART V. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT
[204 PA. CODE CHS. 85 AND 89]
Amendments to the Rules of Organization And Procedure Procedure of the Board Relating to Verification of Pleadings by Respondent-Attorneys; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
[30 Pa.B. 1127] Notice is hereby given that The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is considering amending its Rules of Organization and Procedure as set forth in Annex A to require that pleadings and other documents filed in a disciplinary proceeding be verified by the respondent-attorney.
Under the current rules of the Board, every pleading or other document filed in a formal proceeding must be signed either by the respondent-attorney or by his or her counsel, and all statements of fact in those documents are made subject to the penalties set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904. See 204 Pa. Code § 89.6. There is no requirement, however, that the respondent-attorney must sign documents that include averments or denials of facts, and thus factual averments or denials may be made in documents that are signed solely by counsel for the respondent-attorney. This raises the possibility that a respondent-attorney may fail to inform his or her counsel of the correct facts or fail to correct factual statements in a document since there is no effective way under the current rules for the Board to hold the respondent-attorney responsible for the inaccuracies.
The Board believes that the interests of the disciplinary system may be furthered by requiring a respondent-attorney to sign a verified statement that must accompany any document in which there are factual averments or denials. In the event that the evidence later discloses an inaccuracy in the document, the verified statement will be an independent basis for discipline. The Board is accordingly is proposing to add a new § 85.13 to its Rules of Organization and Procedure which is patterned after Pa.R.Civ.P. 1024.
New § 85.13 would not be limited just to formal proceedings and would apply before a formal proceeding has been instituted. This means, for example, that factual averments or denials made in a response to a Form DB-7 letter from Disciplinary Counsel to a respondent-attorney would be subject to the new rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed amendments to the Office of the Secretary, The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, First Floor, Two Lemoyne Drive, Lemoyne, PA 17043, on or before April 14, 2000.
By The Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of PennsylvaniaELAINE M. BIXLER,
Secretary
Annex A
TITLE 204. JUDICIAL SYSTEM GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART V. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT
Subpart C. DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHAPTER 85. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 85.13. Verification by respondent-attorneys.
Every pleading or other document filed by or on behalf of a respondent-attorney in any proceeding under these rules that contains an averment of fact not appearing of record or a denial of fact shall include or be accompanied by a verified statement signed by the respondent-attorney that the averment or denial is true based upon the respondent-attorney's personal knowledge or information and belief. The respondent-attorney need not aver the source of his information or expectation of ability to prove the averment or denial. The verified statement may be based upon personal knowledge as to a part and upon information and belief as to the remainder.
CHAPTER 89. FORMAL PROCEEDINGS § 89.6. Execution.
* * * * * (d) Cross reference. See § 85.13 (relating to verification by respondent-attorneys).
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 00-337. Filed for public inspection February 25, 2000, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
