Lawyer Suspended for Lying to Client About Settlement
Jamie Ray-Leonetti allegedly fabricated a $50,000 settlement and failed to tell her clients their case was dismissed for failure to file a complaint.
March 20, 2018 at 04:17 PM
3 minute read
A Philadelphia lawyer already facing legal malpractice claims has been suspended from the practice of law.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has suspended Jamie Ray-Leonetti on consent for one year, according to an order posted publicly Tuesday. The Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Ray-Leonetti had filed a joint petition in support of discipline on consent in February.
Ray-Leonetti is also facing legal malpractice claims brought by Josephine and James Cleary over how she handled their medical malpractice lawsuit against the Jefferson Health System and Doylestown Women's Health Center.
Also named as defendants in the legal malpractice case are the Pennsylvania Client Assistance Program, the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania and now-dissolved law firm Williams Cuker Berezofsky, all of which were places Ray-Leonetti worked while representing the Clearys, according to their complaint.
An investigation into Ray-Leonetti's alleged misconduct is still pending, the joint petition said. The disciplinary investigation is also connected to Ray-Leonetti's representation of the Clearys.
According to the disciplinary petition, Ray-Leonetti filed a lawsuit on the Clearys' behalf in February 2014, alleging that a doctor failed to remove a foreign item from Josephine Cleary's body during a hysterectomy in 2012. The case was scheduled for an arbitration hearing, but the arbitration was postponed several times, and the court docket showed that while Ray-Leonetti initiated a lawsuit by filing a writ of summons, she never filed the full complaint, the petition said.
In March 2015, Ray-Leonetti had falsely told the Clearys that their arbitration was postponed because of bad weather, the Clearys' legal malpractice complaint said. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Idee Fox entered a non pros judgment against the Clearys for failing to appear and for failing to file a complaint.
According to the disciplinary petition, Ray-Leonetti told the Clearys there was no need for an arbitration hearing because the case had settled, and promised the Clearys would receive $50,000 from the settlement.
A year later, the Clearys still had not received that money, and sought to meet with Ray-Leonetti about the delay. Ray-Leonetti admitted that there was no settlement but said she could continue to negotiate, the petition said. She did not inform the Clearys that the case had been dismissed.
The disciplinary petition noted as a mitigating factor that Ray-Leonetti has been diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and that she has been cooperative and remorseful throughout the investigation.
But the petition also noted Ray-Leonetti's existing disciplinary record, which includes previous probation for failing to diligently pursue a case and failing to give the client accurate information about that case.
In their civil complaint against Ray-Leonetti, the Clearys said she caused them financial losses, including credit card debt incurred because Ray-Leonetti encouraged the family to go on vacation, saying they could pay for it with the forthcoming settlement funds. The Clearys also suffered emotional distress and physical manifestations of their stress, the complaint said.
Lawyer Barbara Rosenberg, who is representing Ray-Leonetti in the disciplinary case, did not respond to a call seeking comment Tuesday. Neither did Mark Raith of Holsten & Associates, who is defending Ray-Leonetti in the Clearys' civil case.
Mark Tanner and Peter Newman of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig, who are representing the Clearys, declined to comment on the disciplinary order.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250