Ethics Forum: Questions and Answers on Professional Responsibility
I was admitted pro hac vice to try a case in another state. There is now a disciplinary complaint made against me due to an issue occurring during the trial. Since I am a Pennsylvania lawyer, would Pennsylvania have jurisdiction over my disciplinary complaint?
March 09, 2023 at 01:10 PM
14 minute read
Ethics
It's time for lawyers to start being more aware of jurisdictional issues.
I was admitted pro hac vice to try a case in another state. There is now a disciplinary complaint made against me due to an issue occurring during the trial. Since I am a Pennsylvania lawyer, would Pennsylvania have jurisdiction over my disciplinary complaint?
The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct have a jurisdictional section under Rule 8.5. That rule is titled "Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law." The rule essentially says that a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of the state. The rule notes that it is true regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs. The rule also says that if a lawyer is not admitted in a jurisdiction, the lawyer still can be disciplined by the other jurisdiction if the lawyer provides legal services in that jurisdiction. The rule also says the lawyer can be subject to disciplinary authority in both jurisdictions. See Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5(a).
Chester County lawyer Samuel C. Stretton. Courtesy photo
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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
Matt's Corner: Pa.R.D.E. 217—Obligations of a Formerly Admitted Attorney
2 minute read
Pa. High Court's Revision of Rule 7.1 Tightens Previous Guidance on Firm Names
6 minute read
If You Are Too 'Busy' to Communicate With Your Client, You Better Think Again
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Zuckerman Spaeder Gets Ready to Move Offices in DC, Deploy AI Tools in 2025
- 2Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 3Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
- 43rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
- 5Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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
