Following his disbarment in Florida, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has revoked the law license of Philadelphia's first openly gay Traffic Court candidate, Robert P. Tuerk.

Tuerk has a history of disciplinary infractions in Pennsylvania and Florida. His disbarment in Pennsylvania was reciprocal to the Florida disbarment. Tuerk was disbarred after misrepresenting to the Florida court that he did not receive paperwork directing him to show why he shouldn't be held in contempt.

A number listed for Tuerk was disconnected.

The lawyer had been under suspension in both states for failing to mention his prior discipline in his application to practice law in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to a disciplinary board opinion from 2015.

According to the board, Tuerk was arrested in 1985 for soliciting a prostitute who was actually an undercover police officer.

In the 2015 opinion, the board pulled no punches.

“Aggravating factors exist in this disciplinary matter. Respondent was previously suspended for a period of one year and one day for failing to disclose his prior arrest on his Pennsylvania Bar application. In the present case, respondent made a similar omission by failing to reveal his prior discipline,” the opinion said. “Respondent argues that this previous suspension is remote in time, occurring as it did in 1996, and should not be accorded tremendous weight. While it is a fact that nearly 20 years have passed since the imposition of the suspension, it remains that the underlying circumstances are troublingly similar, and must be accorded weight in the analysis of discipline.”

The board also maintained that Tuerk was slow to take responsibility for his actions, as he initially blamed his sponsor for bar admission and a federal court clerk for the situation. He claimed his sponsor, Anthony Crane, never advised him of the admission procedures and that federal court clerk Michael Beck did not ensure the application was correct.

The board said, “Respondent displayed a lack of sincere remorse and a failure to recognize responsibility that constitute aggravating factors. Respondent was asked several times by petitioner, the hearing committee and his own counsel whether he accepted responsibility for his actions. Throughout the hearing he deflected full responsibility by apportioning blame to Mr. Beck and to Mr. Crane, and even to the application itself. By dodging responsibility, he appeared cavalier and dismissive of his conduct. In the end, respondent did accept responsibility when pointedly asked by his counsel, but unfortunately respondent left a lingering impression that such acceptance was grudgingly given.”

Reached Wednesday, his former attorney, Sam Stretton, said Tuerk's disbarment was unfair.

“Florida should have just given him a year and a day. For whatever reason, he didn't open mail up here during his previous suspension. I think there was some depression there,” Stretton said.

Stretton also said when Tuerk found out about the proceedings “he on his own filed his own petition and got a short shift and was denied.”