Supreme Court Suspends Surrick from Practice for 5 Years

The disciplinary action stems from a civil suit – Leedom v. Spano – filed in Delaware County involving a mortgage foreclosure. Surrick and his wife were sureties on the original mortgage and defendants in the foreclosure action.



At trial, all parties decided to let the judge rule on the issue of Surrick’s liability as surety. Bradley ruled against Surrick.



Surrick had not been counsel in the case at that point but entered an appearance on the appeal docket. In August 1992, he filed a motion to recuse certain judges on the state Superior Court from hearing the case.



The recusal petition accused Bradley of “fixing” the case because of a deal with the Delaware County Republican Organization and former Justice Rolf Larsen. Surrick, as a member of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board, had previously voted to have Larsen removed from the bench.



The recusal petition also said that Olszewski had made a decision in a lawsuit involving the break-up of Surrick’s law firm that was “based on outside intervention,” rather than grounded on “rational legal analysis.”



On the basis of these accusations in the recusal motion, the disciplinary board brought charges against Surrick.



Surrick waived his confidentiality in the proceedings, and, after hearings before the board, the committee issued a report to dismiss the charges. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court remanded the case to the board for review in light of another high court decision.



The board ruled that Surrick had indeed violated the Rules of Professional Conduct with regard to his allegations against Olszewski but not those against Bradley. The Supreme Court then granted cross petitions for review.

‘Reckless’ Allegations

Cappy noted that the court is not bound by the recommendations of the board, but the court does give them “substantial deference.”



The Disciplinary, Counsel argued to the high court that the allegations Surrick made were done in “ignorance of the truth.” Surrick countered that he had a reasonable basis to believe the statements to be true.



The initial burden was on the counsel to prove Surrick’s activity constituted misconduct. The court determined that an objective analysis as set forth in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Price,, PICS Case No. 99-1269 (Pa. June 24, 1999) Zappala, J.; Flaherty, C.J., & Castille and Nigro, JJ., dissenting (14 pages), was appropriate.



The objective approach starts with the burden on the counsel to show that an attorney made false allegations. The burden then shifts to the attorney to show an “objective reasonable basis for the allegations.”



“[Surrick] does not argue that the allegations are true, but that he reasonably believed the statements were true at the time he submitted the motion,” Cappy wrote. “Disciplinary Counsel counters that respondent deliberately closed his eyes to facts that he had a duty to consider and acted with reckless indifference to the reputation of others in putting forth these allegations.”



The court reviewed Surrick’s history with the judiciary.



In 1980, the governor appointed Surrick to the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board. It was at that time that the chief justice of the Supreme Court ordered an investigation into whether Larsen committed “certain improprieties.”



After the investigation, Surrick voted to have Larsen removed from office, but his vote was the minority. Then, according to the opinion, he was unhappy with the decision and used the media to “widely disseminate his personal views on the need for judicial reform.”



“Respondent believes that since his unsuccessful attempt to have Justice Larsen removed from office, and because of his well known public views on the subject of judicial reform in Pennsylvania, he has created powerful political and judicial enemies who have united in an effort to bring about his destruction,” Cappy wrote.



“Thus, respondent believes he is a champion of justice and that every setback he suffers in the legal arena is a direct result of a conspiracy to suppress his views on judicial reform. From this negative view of the justice system, respondent brought forth his allegations against Judge Bradley and Judge Olszewski.”



For example, the opinion said, Surrick alleged Olszewski made a ruling against him in a case in order to win favor with Larsen because the justice had control over naming senior judges, a status that Olszewski was about to reach.



The high court said that the allegation consisted of the attorney’s “stringing together unrelated facts with illogical inferences.”



“Respondent views the court system through the warped lens of his vitriolic battle against former Justice Larsen,” Cappy wrote. “If respondent does not prevail in a legal matter that ruling is ipso facto an example of the grand conspiracy created by former Justice Larsen to destroy respondent.”



In both instances, the high court ruled that Surrick violated Rule 8.4(c). Cappy then said that even though the actions were reckless rather than intentional, severe sanctions were necessary because the damage to the judges was already done.



“Respondent’s predilection to unprovoked character assassination whenever he receives an adverse ruling exhibits conduct that is clearly unprofessional and calls into question his ability to continue practicing law in a fit manner,” Cappy wrote.



The court said allegations such as Surrick’s “carry explosive repercussions” and taint the judiciary’s role as “arbiter of justice.”



“When a lawyer holds the truth to be of so little value that it can be recklessly disregarded when his temper and personal paranoia dictate, that lawyer should not be permitted to represent the public before the courts of this commonwealth,” the court wrote.



The high court instituted a five-year suspension and ordered Surrick to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Other Disciplinary Action