Opinion ID: 2393958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Establishing Misconduct

Text: In September of 2000, Officer William Shields (Officer Shields) of the Haverford Township Police Department issued a citation to Dubolino for violating Section 1786 of the Motor Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1786 (failure to maintain financial responsibility). She was found guilty of the offense in the magisterial district court. After her conviction, the Department of Transportation (DOT) notified her that it would suspend her operating privileges for three months. Following expiration of the thirty days in which to file an appeal from the decision of the magisterial district court, Dubolino retained DiAngelus to file a civil license suspension appeal nunc pro tunc and a nunc pro tunc summary criminal appeal in the Court of Common Pleas. On January 31, 2001, DiAngelus appeared before the Honorable Kenneth Clouse in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County for Dubolino's nunc pro tunc summary appeal. At the hearing, the Commonwealth agreed to withdraw the charge of violation of Section 1786 in exchange for Dubolino pleading guilty to the lesser charge of violation of Section 1301 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1301 (driving unregistered vehicle prohibited). [2] ODC alleged that the Commonwealth agreed to this disposition based on a misrepresentation by DiAngelus to then Assistant District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer (ADA Stollsteimer) that Officer Shields agreed to a reduction of the charges. ADA Stollsteimer testified as follows before the three-member Hearing Committee: Mr. Davis (Disciplinary Counsel): Now, did you have any conversations with Mr. DiAngelus about this agreement before it was presented to Judge Clouse? [ADA]: Yes, we negotiated the guilty plea. Davis: And do you recall who the citing police officer was in this matter? [ADA]: Bill Shields, an officer from Haverford Township. Davis: And did his name come up in your conversation? [ADA]: It did. He was not present in court that day, and I remember asking Mr. DiAngelus if he had talked to Officer Shields and got his agreement for us to drop the one charge and for her to plead to the lesser charge. Davis: And what did Mr. DiAngelus tell you? [ADA]: He told me that he talked to Officer Shields and that he did agree. Davis: And that who agreed? [ADA]: Officer Shields agreed with that disposition of the case. Davis: And you're saying Officer Shields was not present in the courtroom that day? [ADA]: He was not. I don't know if he was there earlier, but at the time I was handling that matter he was not there, and that's why I asked Mr. DiAngelus about that. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 4/21/04, at 234-35. Kelly Sullivan, Esquire, who was an intern at the Delaware County District Attorney's Office at the time of the incident, corroborated the testimony of ADA Stollsteimer, and stated, My recollection is that Mr. DiAngelus told [ADA Stollsteimer] that Officer Shields agreed to a certain disposition in the case. Id. at 271. Meanwhile, Officer Shields testified that, contrary to DiAngelus's representations, he had had no conversations with DiAngelus regarding the Dubolino case prior to the January 31 hearing. Id. at 285 ([Davis]: Did you have any discussions at all with Mr. DiAngelus about the Dubolino matter before January 31, 2001? [Shields]: None.). Officer Shields also testified that he and Mark Werlinsky (Attorney Werlinsky), a PennDOT attorney, encountered DiAngelus at Dubolino's license suspension hearing on March 13, 2001, and that DiAngelus again asserted that he had reached an agreement with Officer Shields on January 31, an assertion that Officer Shields vehemently denied. Specifically, Officer Shields testified as follows: Davis: Did you and Mr. Werlinsky have any conversations with Mr. DiAngelus prior to the [license suspension] hearing before Judge Clouse? Shields: Yes. Davis: And please tell the Committee what occurred during those conversations. Shields: After I had chatted with Mr. Werlinsky and explained the nature of my involvement in this case, Mr. DiAngelus walked up to Mr. Werlinsky and I was standing next to Mr. Werlinsky, Mr. Werlinsky said to Mr. DiAngelus that I just spoke to Office Shields and he told me he wasn't in court on January 31st of this year in reference to this case. Mr. DiAngelus looked at me says [ sic ], you remember you were here, and you agreed to the dispositions on the two citations. I said I wasn't in Delaware County Common Pleas Court on that day, and I didn't agree to any dispositions because I wasn't here. I pulled out my calendar, and I said this is my schedule, you can look right here for January 31st, and I pointed to it, and I said I didn't have court scheduled on that day and I wasn't here. And then he said you don't remember, you were here for court on that day. I said I wasn't here for court on that day, and I didn't agree to any dispositions, and then Mr. DiAngelus left the courtroom and walked into the hall. Id. at 286-88. Attorney Werlinsky testified regarding the same encounter: Werlinsky: I remember Officer Shields saying something to the effect that there had never been a hearing, and at that point Mr. DiAngelus said something to the effect that you were at a hearing and you agreed to lower the charge, and Officer Shields said it never happened. I believe he asked for the hearing date and then he got his calendar out to show that he didn't have anything down on that date . . . . Id. at 303. Clearly, because Officer Shields was not in court on January 31, 2001, he could not have consented to withdrawing the charge of violating Section 1786 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Evidence is sufficient to prove unprofessional conduct if a preponderance of the evidence establishes the conduct and the proof of such conduct is clear and satisfactory. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 493 Pa. 194, 425 A.2d 730, 732 (1981). In addition, while our review is de novo, the findings of the Hearing Committee and the Disciplinary Board are guidelines for judging the credibility of witnesses, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lucarini, 504 Pa. 271, 472 A.2d 186, 188 (1983), and should be given substantial deference. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A., 552 Pa. 223, 714 A.2d 402, 404 (1998). The testimony cited above provided the Hearing Committee and the Board with a sufficient factual basis on which to conclude that DiAngelus falsely represented to ADA Stollsteimer that DiAngelus engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, thereby establishing a violation of RPC 8.4(c). However, to establish that the fraudulent misrepresentation was of a material fact, RPC 4.1(a), and was prejudicial to the administration of justice, RPC 8.4(d), the ODC was also required to establish that the violation affected the outcome of the proceedings. While DiAngelus essentially argues that there is not sufficient evidence to establish these additional facts, we disagree. As stated above, the Hearing Committee found that the ADA and judge accepted a plea to the lesser charge based on DiAngelus's misrepresentation. However, DiAngelus contends that the trial court did not dismiss the greater charge, i.e., a charge of driving without financial responsibility, because of the purported plea agreement, but rather, found Dubolino not guilty of that charge based on evidence presented at the hearing that Dubolino's estranged husband, not Dubolino herself, was the owner of the uninsured car. In support of this assertion, DiAngelus cites the transcript of the guilty plea hearing, which provides as follows: [ADA]: We've reached an agreement in this matter, Your Honor.    [The] Commonwealth will be withdrawing one of the two citations, Your Honor, XXXXXXX-X, which is a reflective charge of 1786, Required Financial Responsibility. Mr. DiAngelus has presented evidence, Your Honor that I think he would like to put on the record about the reason why the Commonwealth is withdrawing this charge. Mr. DiAngelus: Your Honor, I have in my hands, I've shown it to the prosecuting attorney, a certificate  or the notification of title registration, which shows this car was registered to Joseph Dubolino, not Patricia. So this was not her vehicle. The Court: Okay. We'll note that for the record. Mr. DiAngelus: It has to go on the record because we have a license suspension appeal coming after March and you know what Mr. Werlinsky [the PennDOT attorney] says. The Court: All right. Mr. DiAngelus: So the Court . . . The Court: I'll note that for the record. Just let me see it a minute. The Court has examined the document  the document for plate DRT2087, Title # XXXXXXXXXXXDU and it is registered to Joseph S. Dubolino, not the  I will note that for the record and you can remind me of that at the time the license suspension appeal comes up with Mr. Werlinsky. Mr. DiAngelus: And this was a Ford  1994 Ford Mustang . . . The Court: I have personally looked at the matter and certified that that's the way it is. Mr. DiAngelus: It was a Ford Mustang Coupe 1994, which is what reads on the Citation, Your Honor. The Court: I certify that for the record. Mr. DiAngelus: That day, we'll remind you of that, your Honor. The Court: Well, Mr. Werlinsky will remind me too. [ADA]: Your Honor, with that matter resolved, I think that XXXXXXX-X Citation, reflecting the charge of 1301, Driving a Vehicle with an Expired Registration, there will be a guilty plea to that. The Court: Okay . . .    The Court: Okay. I find you not guilty to the 1786. Accept your plea of guilty to the 1301 and impose a $75 fine plus costs. . . . N.T., 1/31/01, at 3-6. Based on this testimony, DiAngelus takes the position that Dubolino was found not guilty of the driving without financial responsibility charge because the evidence showed that she was, in fact, not guilty. However, ADA Stollsteimer viewed the transcript differently: . . . [DiAngelus] wanted to put that [evidence] in the record. I had no comment about whether or not the evidence he was putting in was true, nor did I have an opinion about it. He asked to put that into the record and I allowed him to. . . . N.T., 4/21/04, at 245. ADA Stollsteimer further commented that at the point that DiAngelus wanted to put the evidence on the record, he then stepped out of it because we had a guilty plea negotiation. Whether the judge saw it and what the judge and he were talking about I didn't pay a lot of attention to. Id. at 248-49, 714 A.2d 402. Indeed, according to the ADA, his only concern was that Officer Shields had been talked to and whether or not he agreed this was a fair disposition, id. at 249, 714 A.2d 402, because he would only enter into the agreement if he had the consent of Officer Shields. [3] Moreover, both the ADA and Kelly Sullivan, the intern, explained that there was no specific indication of a plea agreement on the record because plea negotiations are always off the record, and only the ultimate guilty plea is typically documented. Id. at 237-39, 272, 714 A.2d 402. ADA Stollsteimer testified that he did not contest the evidence presented by DiAngelus because he was willing to dismiss the charges against Dubolino in reliance upon the plea agreement to which he believed the charging officer had assented. Thus, the dishonesty of DiAngelus was material and prejudicial to the administration of justice. RPC 4.1(a); RPC 8.4(d). Accordingly, the ODC established that DiAngelus committed professional misconduct.