Frank Fina. (Photo: Matt Rourke/AP)

Former Pennsylvania Assistant Attorney General Frank Fina has been suspended from the practice of law in a case over his activities in the Penn State child sexual abuse prosecution, for overreaching the mandate of the grand jury supervising judge by asking questions of defendants that compromised their attorney-client privilege.

Fina, who led the investigation that culminated in the conviction of child molester Jerry Sandusky, was ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to surrender his license for one year, plus one day.

The justices issued a per curiam order Wednesday, suspending Fina after the state's Disciplinary Board determined that he improperly questioned a witness during the grand jury investigation in a way that breached the attorney-client privilege of three former Penn State administrators who were later charged with child endangerment in connection with the Sandusky scandal.

The decision to impose a year-and-a-day suspension is in accordance with the recommendation the Disciplinary Board handed up in June and means that, after completing the suspension, Fina will have to reapply for his law license.

The high court did not issue an opinion outlining its reasoning, but Justice David Wecht issued a concurring statement, saying that, as a prosecutor, Fina played a "special and distinctive role" in the justice system and had to be wary of crossing into areas protected by the attorney-client privilege during grand jury proceedings.

"Unlike other lawyers, the prosecutor is more than a zealous advocate for a client," Wecht said. "The prosecutor bears as well the high and non-delegable duty of ensuring a fair process for the defendant and of comporting himself or herself always in a manner consistent with a position of public trust."

Justice Christine Donohue joined Wecht's opinion, but Justice Kevin Dougherty said he agreed that Fina broke the disciplinary rules but disagreed that the conduct warranted "as severe a sanction." The per curiam order also noted that Chief Justice Thomas Saylor did not participate in considering the case.

Fina's lawyer, Dennis McAndrews of McAndrews, Mehalick, Connolly, Hulse, Ryan and Marone, said in a statement, "We continue to believe that Mr. Fina violated no rule. No opinion of the court was issued with the unsigned order to supply reasoning behind the order. We raised several important due process issues on Mr. Fina's behalf and will promptly seek review of these issues with the United States Supreme Court."

The conduct giving rise to the disciplinary matter happened at an October 2012 hearing into whether state prosecutors could call Penn State's former general counsel Cynthia Baldwin to testify before an investigating grand jury. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel argued that, before that hearing occurred, another hearing should have taken place to specifically address whether Baldwin could testify before the grand jury, since, at the time, she was acting in a position seemingly representing both Penn State and former university officials Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. Since Curley and Schultz were already facing child endangerment charges, Baldwin's legal position in the case was characterized by several justices, during an oral argument session in November, as "murky."

The ODC argued that Fina's promises not to question Baldwin about issues that could implicate Curley and Schultz misled grand jury supervising Judge Barry Feudale into believing there was no need to have that hearing.

Wecht's eight-page statement noted that, after Curley, Schultz and former Penn State president Graham Spanier were charged for their alleged role, the Superior Court quashed some of the charges against them over concerns they were not properly represented during those grand jury proceedings. If Fina had adhered to the rule, Wecht said, those issues could have been properly addressed.

"With the privilege concerns conclusively litigated, any permitted testimony and resulting indictments would have been insulated from reversal on this basis," Wecht said. "This unfortunate circumstance demonstrates that adherence to Rule 3.10 protects not just the attorney-client relationship, but the prosecution as well."