office of disciplinary counsel, : no. 1179 disciplinary … · 2006-12-05 · rendel's claims...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1179 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Petitioner

V.

RUTH ANN PRICE,

No. 113 DB 2006

: Attorney Registration No. 33004

Respondent : (Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 10th day of October, 2006, upon consideration of the

Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated June 30,

2006,. the Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby granted, pursuant to

Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E., and it is

ORDERED that Ruth Ann Price is suspended on consent from the Bar of

this Commonwealth for a period of six months, and she shall comply with all the

provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.

A True Copy Patricia Nicola

Att

er 10,9006 As o

Chief rl<

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 113 DB 2006

Petitioner

v. : Attorney Registration No. 33004

RUTH ANN PRICE


RECOMMENDATION OF THREE-MEMBER PANEL

OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE


The Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania, consisting of Board Members Gary G. Gentile, Francis X. O'Connor and

Mark S. Baer, has reviewed the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent filed

in the above-captioned matter on June 19, 2006.

The Panel approves the Joint Petition consenting to a Six Month Suspension and

recommends to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that the attached Petition be

Granted.

The Panel further recommends that any necessary expenses incurred in the

investigation and prosecution of this matter shall be paid by the respondent-attorney as

a condition to the grant of the Petition.

Date: June 30, 2006

Gary G entile,

The isciplinary

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Board Member O'Connor dissents and would favor a one year suspension.



OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, :

Petitioner :

V.

RUTH ANN PRICE,

DB 2006

: Atty. Reg. No. 33004


JOINT PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE

ON CONSENT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E.

Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, by Paul J.

Killion, Esquire, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and by Richard

Hernandez, Esquire, Disciplinary Counsel, and Respondent, Ruth

Ann Price, file this Joint Petition In Support Of Discipline

On Consent Under Rule 215(d) of the Pennsylvania Rules of

Disciplinary Enforcement and respectfully represent that:

1. Respondent, Ruth Ann Price, was born on April 20,

1952, and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth on

December 10, 1980. Respondent is currently on inactive

status.

2. According to attorney registration records,

Respondent's office is located at 8057 Rodney Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19150, and her home address is 1117 Crestover

Road, Wilmington, DE 19803. However, Respondent no longer

maintains an office for the practice of law.

3. On September 16, 2005, Respondent was personally

FILE

JUN 1 9 2006

Office of the Secretary

The Disciplinary Board of the

Suorerne Court of Pennsylvan0

served with a Request for Statement of Respondent's Position

(Form DB-7) dated September 14, 2005.

4. By letter dated October 16, 2005, Respondent

submitted a response to the DB-7 letter.

5. By letters sent via facsimile transmission on

November 14, 2005, February 24, 2006, February 27, 2006, March

6, 2006, and March 10, 2006, Respondent provided to Richard

Hernandez, Disciplinary Counsel, additional information and

documentation relating to the allegations raised in the DB-7

letter.

SPECIFIC FACTUAL ADMISSIONS AND

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VIOLATED

6. Respondent hereby stipulates that the following

factual allegations drawn from the Petition for Discipline are

true and correct and that she violated the charged Rules of

Professional Conduct as set forth herein.

CHARGE

7. The Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education Board

("CLE Board") assigned Respondent to Compliance Group 1, which

has an annual deadline of April 30th to comply with Continuing

Legal Education ("CLE") course requirements.

8. Under cover of notice dated January 30, 2004, the

CLE Board mailed to Respondent a "Preliminary Annual CLE

Report," reminding Respondent that her course attendance

record i dicated that she was not in compliance with CLE

2

requirements for the period ending April 30, 2004.

9. Respondent received this notice, with enclosure.

10. By notice dated June 25, 2004, the CLE Board, in ter

a l i a :

a. mailed to Respondent an "Annual CLE Report,"

which indicated that she was not in compliance

with the CLE requirements for the period

ending April 30, 2004;

b. informed Respondent that a late fee of $100

had been assessed and that pursuant to CLE

regulations, she had sixty days from the date

of the notice to complete the CLE requirements

or to receive an approved exception; and

c. advised Respondent that after the expiration

of ninety days from the date of the notice,

the CLE Board would prepare a list of non-

compliant lawyers and assess them an

additional late fee of $100 and forward that

list to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania with

a recommendation that the lawyers on that list

be "involuntarily inactivated for non-

compliance."

11. Respondent received this notice, with enclosures.

12. By notice dated September 29, 2004, the CLE Board,

3

in ter a l i a :

a. advised Respondent that its records indicated

that she was not in compliance with the CLE

requirements for the period ending April 30,

2004, and that she was being assessed a second

late fee of $100 for her continued non-

compliance;

b. informed Respondent that the list of non-

compliant attorneys for submission to the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would be

completed by October 29, 2004; and

c. warned Respondent that it was "imperative"

that she remedy her non-compliance with the

CLE requirements before October 29, 2004, or

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would enter

an order "involuntarily" inactivating her

license.

13. Respondent received this notice, with enclosures.

14. By Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated

November 29, 2004, Respondent was to be transferred to

inactive status pursuant to Rule 111(b), Pa.R.C.L.E.,

effective thirty days after the date of the Order in

accordance with Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.

15. By letter dated November 29, 2004, sent by certified

mail, return receipt requested, and mailed to Respondent at

4

her office address of 8057 Rodney Street, Philadelphia, PA

19150, Elaine M. Bixler, Secretary to the Disciplinary Board:

a. served Respondent with a copy of the Supreme

Court Order of November 29, 2004;

b. informed her that she was required to comply

with Rules 217 of the Pa.R.D.E. and §§91.91-

91.100 of the Disciplinary Board Rules as

enclosed;

c. provided her with the Standard Guidance of the

Disciplinary Board to Lawyers who have been

transferred to Inactive Status; Form DB-23(i),

Nonlitigation Notice of Disbarment, Suspension

or Transfer to Inactive Status; Form DB-24(i),

Litigation Notice of Disbarment, Suspension or

Transfer to Inactive Status; Form DB-25(i),

Statement of Compliance; and a letter prepared

by the CLE Board providing information

regarding compliance with Rule 111(B),

Pa.R.C.L.E.; and

d. advised her that in order to resume active

status, she was required to comply with the

CLE Board.

16. Respondent did not claim this letter.

17. The United States Postal Service returned Ms.

Bixler's November 29, 2004 certified letter to the Office of

5

the Secretary to the Disciplinary Board, marking the outside of

the envelope with the word "UNCLAIMED."

18. On January 6, 2005, Ms. Bixler's November 29, 2004

letter, along with enclosures, was resent to Respondent by

regular mail, and mailed to Respondent at her residence

located at 610 Foulkstone Road, Wilmington, DE 19803.

19. Respondent does not deny that the United States

Postal Service delivered this letter to Respondent's

residence; however, Respondent does not recall receiving this

letter.

20. Respondent violated Pa.R.D.E. 217(e), in that she

did not file a verified Statement of Compliance (Form DB-

25(i)) with the Disciplinary Board Secretary within ten days

after the effective date of her transfer to inactive status.

21. In the following cases, Respondent violated

Pa.R.D.E. 217(b), Pa.R.D.E. 217(c)(1) and (2), and/or RPC

1.16(a) (1) by failing to notify her clients, the court, and

opposing counsel of her transfer to inactive status as

required by said Rules and/or by failing to withdraw her

appearance:

a. Ardi th Crawley vs . Kenneth Saffren , Esquire

and Saffren & Weingerg, CCP Phila., No.

041202441;

b. Bessie D . Redd and David C . Redd vs . Machelle

6

Ann Stewart , et al . , CCP Phila., No.

050602616;

c. Fresnel Rendel v . Cheltenham Rehabili tation

Center ;

d. Louisimene G . Rendel v Immaculate Mary Home ,

Docket No. E03023660; and

e. Fresnel Rendel v TmnI cula te Mazy Rome , Docket

No. E03023659.

22. Respondent violated RPC 5.5(a) by providing legal

services, e.g., appearing at judicial hearings,

pleadings, rendering legal consultation and

negotiating or transacting matters with opposing

and/or third parties, and undertaking discovery,

individuals listed below after her transfer to

status:

filing

advice,

counsel

to the

inactive

a. Ardith Crawley;

b. Bessie D. Redd and David C. Redd; and

c. Fresnel Rendel and Louisimene G. Rendel.

23. Respondent failed to advise her clients in those

cases that are set forth in paragraph twenty-two (22) that:

a. she had been transferred to inactive status;

b. she could not represent them in their legal

matters; and

c. they should retain other counsel.

7

24. Since the effective date of Respondent's transfer to

inactive status, Respondent misrepresented to her clients, the

courts, and opposing counsel that she was eligible to practice

law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

25. Since the effective date of Respondent's transfer to

inactive status until September 2005, Respondent continued to

use letterhead that identified her as eligible to practice law

in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

26. Respondent negotiated a settlement on behalf of Mr.

Rendel and Mrs. Rendel of their claims against Immaculate Mary

Home, which claims were the subject of complaints filed with

the City of Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, Docket

Nos. E03023659 and E03023660.

a. The settlement agreement provided that Mr. and

Mrs. Rendel were to receive a settlement check

made payable to them in the amount of $10,000,

and that Respondent was to receive a check

made payable to her in the amount of $2,750,

for her attorney's fees.

27. Under cover of letter dated December 21, 2004, which

Respondent hand-delivered to Mr. and Mrs. Rendel at their

residence, Respondent provided to Mr. and Mrs. Rendel two

General Releases for their signature, settling their claims

against Immaculate Mary Home.

26. Mr. and Mrs. Rendel executed the General Releases in

Respondent's presence and before a notary public, who

accompanied Respondent to their residence.

29. Sometime in or about March or April 2005, Respondent

received the $10,000 check in settlement of Mr. and Mrs.

Rendel's claims against Immaculate Mary Home.

30. On April 2, 2005, Respondent went to the residence

of Mr. and Mrs. Rendel and presented to Mrs. Rendel:

a. a $5,000 check, made payable to Mr. and Mrs.

Rendel; and

b. a document entitled "Statement of Professional

Fees, Costs, Disbursements & Expenses" ("the

Statement"), that also contained the heading

"General Release," which appeared later in the

document.

31. The Statement provided that Respondent was

withholding the sum of $5,000 from the $10,000 settlement

proceeds received from Immaculate Mary Home to satisfy her

outstanding attorney fees.

32. Mrs. Rendel disputed Respondent's entitlement to a

payment of $5,000 from the $10,000 settlement proceeds

received from Immaculate Mary Home.

33. Although Respondent was aware that Mrs. Rendel

disputed Respondent's claim that she was entitled to payment

of $5,000 from the $10,000 settlement proceeds Respondent

received from Immaculate Mary Home, Respondent failed to hold

9

the disputed funds separate until the dispute over

Respondent's entitlement to those funds was resolved.

34. The Statement Respondent presented to Mr. and Mrs.

Rendel for their signature contained a provision under the

heading "General Release," that had the effect of:

a. limiting Respondent's liability to Mr. and

Mrs. Rendel for malpractice; and

b. settling a claim or potential claim for

malpractice.

35. Respondent failed to:

a. advise Mr. and Mrs. Rendel, in writing, that

they should seek independent legal counsel in

connection with the Statement; and

b. provide Mr. and Mrs. Rendel with a reasonable

oipportunity to seek the advice of independent

legal counsel in connection with the

Statement.

36. By her conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 7 through 35

above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional

Conduct:

a. RPC 1.8(h) (2), which states that a lawyer

shall not settle a claim Or potential claim

for malpractice with an unrepresented client

or former client unless that person is advised

in writing of the desirability of seeking and

10

is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the

advice of independent legal counsel in

connection therewith;

b. RPC 1.15(c), which states when in connection

with a client-lawyer relationship a lawyer is

in possession of property in which two or more

persons, one of whom may be the lawyer, claim

an interest, the property shall be kept

separate by the lawyer until the dispute is

resolved. The lawyer shall promptly

distribute all portions of the property as to

which the interests are not in dispute;

c. RPC 1.16(a) (1), which states that a lawyer

shall withdraw from the representation of a

client if the representation will result in

violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct

or other law;

d. RPC 5.5(a), which states that a lawyer shall

not practice law in a jurisdiction in

violation of the regulation of the legal

profession in that jurisdiction, or assist

another in doing so;

e. RPC 8.4(c), which states that a lawyer shall

not engage in conduct involving dishonesty,

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and

11

Pa.R.D.E. 203(b) (3), which states that a wilful

violation of any other provision of the

Enforcement Rules shall constitute misconduct

and shall be grounds for discipline, vi a :

(1) Pa.R.D.E. 217(b), which states that a

formerly admitted attorney shall promptly

notify, or cause to be notified, by

registered or certified mail, return

receipt requested, all clients who are

involved in pending litigation or

administrative proceedings, and the

attorney or attorneys for each adverse

party in such matter or proceeding, of the

disbarment, suspension or transfer to

inactive status and consequent inability

of the formerly admitted attorney to act

as an attorney after the effective date of

the disbarment, suspension or transfer to

inactive status. The notice to be given

to the client shall advise the prompt

substitution of another attorney or

attorneys in place of the formerly

admitted attorney. In the event the

client does not obtain substitute counsel

before the effective date of the


inactive status, it shall be the

responsibility of the formerly admitted

attorney to move in the court or agency in

which the proceeding is pending for leave

to withdraw. The notice to be given to

the attorney or attorneys for an adverse

party shall state the place of residence

of the client of the formerly admitted

attorney;

(2) Pa.R.D.E. 217(c) (1), which states that a


notify, or cause to be notified, of the


inactive status, by registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested,

all persons or their agents or guardians

to whom a fiduciary duty is or may be owed

12

at any time after the disbarment,

suspension or transfer to inactive status;

(3) Pa.R.D.E. 217(c) (2), which states that a


notify, or cause to be notified, of the


inactive status, by registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested,

all other persons with whom the formerly

admitted attorney may at any time expect

to have professional contacts under

circumstances where there is a reasonable

probability that they may infer that he or

she continues as an attorney in good

standing;

(4) Pa.R.D.E. 217(d), which states that orders

imposing suspension, disbarment or

transfer to inactive status shall be

effective 30 days after entry. The

formerly admitted attorney, after entry of

the disbarment, suspension or transfer to

inactive status order, shall not accept

any new retainer or engage as attorney for

another in any new case or legal matter of

any nature. However, during the period

from the entry date of the order and its

effective date the formerly admitted

attorney may wind up and complete, on

behalf of any client, all matters which

were pending on the entry date;

(5) Pa.R.D.E. 217(e), which states that within

ten days after the effective date of the


inactive status order, the formerly

admitted attorney shall file with the

Board a verified statement;

(6) Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4)(iii), which states

that a formerly admitted attorney is

specifically prohibited from performing

any law-related services for any client

who in the past was represented by the

formerly admitted attorney;

(7) Pa.R.D.B. 217(j)(4)(iv), which states


13

specifically prohibited from representing

himself or herself as a lawyer or person

of similar status;

(8) Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4)(v), which states that

a formerly admitted attorney is

specifically prohibited from having any

contact with clients either in person, by

telephone, or in writing, except as

provided in paragraph (3);

(9) Pa.R.D.E. 217(j) (4) (vi), which states


specifically prohibited from rendering

legal consultation or advice to a client;

(10) Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4)(vii), which states


specifically prohibited from appearing on

behalf of a client in any hearing or

proceeding before any judicial officer,

arbitrator, mediator, court, public

agency, referee, magistrate, hearing

officer or any other adjudicative person

or body;

(11) Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4)(ix), which states


specifically prohibited from negotiating

or transacting any matter for or on

behalf of a client with third parties or

having any contact with third parties

regarding such a negotiation or

transaction; and

(12) Pa.R.D.E. 217(j)(4)(x), which states that

a formerly admitted attorney is

specifically prohibited from receiving,

disbursing or otherwise handling client

funds.

SPECIFIC JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE

37. Petitioner and Respondent jointly recommend that the

appropriate discipline for Respondent's admitted misconduct is

a suspension from the practice of law for a period of six

14

months.

38. Respondent hereby consents to that discipline being

imposed upon her by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Attached to this Petition is Respondent's executed Affidavit

required by Rule 215(d), Pa.R.D.E., stating that she consents

to the recommended discipline, including the mandatory

acknowledgements contained in Rule 215(d) (1) through (4),

Pa.R.D.E.

39. In support of Petitioner and Respondent's joint

recommendation, it is respectfully submitted that there are

several mitigating circumstances:

a. Respondent has admitted engaging in misconduct

and violating the charged Rules of

Professional Conduct and Pennsylvania Rules of

Disciplinary Enforcement;

b. Respondent has cooperated with Petitioner, as

is evidenced by Respondent's admissions herein

and her consent to receiving a suspension of

six months;

c. Respondent has no record of discipline;

d. Respondent is remorseful for her misconduct

and understands she should be disciplined, as

is evidenced by her consent to receiving a

suspension of six months;

15

e. although Respondent does not recollect

receiving and reviewing Ms. Bixler's November

29, 2004 letter advising Respondent of her

transfer to inactive status, Respondent has

admitted to receiving and reviewing notices

from the CLE Board advising Respondent that

her eligibility to practice law was in

imminent jeopardy because of her failure to

comply with the CLE requirements;

f. Respondent did not timely comply with her CLE

requirements because she did not have the

funds to pay for attendance at CLE courses;

g- Respondent has secured employment as a hearing

examiner for the Delaware Public Service

Commission and has no intention of maintaining

a brivate law practice;

Respondent has satisfied her CLE course

requirements since securing employment as a

hearing examiner;

i. Respondent has not engaged in the unauthorized

practice of law since receiving the September

14, 2005 DB-7 letter; and

Respondent has returned to Mrs. Redd her legal

file and Respondent has withdrawn her

16

appearance in the Redd case, notifying the

court of her transfer to inactive status.

40. The most serious misconduct engaged in by Respondent

was her unauthorized practice of law in three separate client

matters.

41. Respondent's unauthorized practice of law in the

Rendels' matters consisted of Respondent's receipt and

distribution of the Rendels' settlement proceeds in April 2005

(settlement of the Rendels' claims occurred in December 2004,

before the effective date of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's

Order transferring Respondent to inactive status) . In March

2005, Respondent also investigated Mr. Rendel's claim that he

was wrongfully terminated from his employment at Cheltenham

Rehabilitation Center and advised Mr. Rendel that she would

not represent him in that matter.

42. Respondent's representation of Mrs. Crawley was

limited to filing a Writ of Summons and a Complaint on Mrs.

Crawley's behalf; according to Respondent, these pleadings

were filed as a favor to Mrs. Crawley so that Mrs. Crawley was

not time-barred from investigating and pursuing a claim

against her former attorney. By Order dated September 27,

2005, Mrs. Crawley's case was dismissed after the court

granted defendant's Motion for Judgment of Non Pros .

43. Finally, Respondent's unauthorized practice of law

in Mrs. Redd's case consisted of filing the Complaint in June

1 7

2005, reinstating the Complaint in July 2005, and attending a

Case Management Conference in September 2005.

44. There is precedent suggesting that despite

Respondent's claim that she did not receive actual notice of

her transfer to inactive status, her unauthorized practice of

law would warrant a term of suspension. In Office of

Disciplinary Counsel v . Steven Clark Forman , No. 70 DB 2001

(S.Ct. Order dated 1/31/03) (D.Bd. Rpt. dated 11/13/02),

Respondent Forman claimed that he did not receive notice of

his transfer to inactive status; nevertheless, he was

suspended for one year and one day for engaging in the

unauthorized practice of law. Respondent Forman had engaged

in the unauthorized practice of law for twelve years and the

Disciplinary Board found incredible his excuse for failing to

comply with the mandatory CLE requirements. Unlike Respondent

Forman, Respondent Price was not engaging in the unauthorized

practice of law for a period of many years, making her

misconduct far less extensive than Respondent Forman's and

rendering plausible her explanation that she did not have

actual notice of her transfer to inactive status. However,

like Respondent Forman, Respondent Price had reason to believe

that she was no longer eligible to practice law, due to her

receipt of the September 29, 2004 letter from the CLE Board

notifying her that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would

18

transfer her to inactive status if she failed to bring herself

into compliance with the CLE requirements. Because

Respondent's unauthorized practice of law was not nearly as

extensive as that of Respondent Forman's, a suspension of less

than a year and a day would be the appropriate discipline for

Respondent's misconduct.

45. Recently, an attorney received a suspension of six

months for having engaged in "limited acts" of unauthorized

practice of law. In Office of Disciplinary Counsel 11% John V.

Buffington , No. 45 DB 2004 (D.Bd. Rpt. 06/22/05) (S.Ct. Order

09/22/05), Respondent Buffington received a six-month

suspension for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in

three legal matters following his transfer to inactive status

for failing to comply with CLE requirements. Respondent

Buffington also continued to serve as an arbitrator in the

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas after his transfer to

inactive status rendered him no longer eligible to serve in

that capacity. Respondent Buffington had notice of his

transfer to inactive status. (D.Bd. Rpt. 3) In recommending a

six-month suspension, the Disciplinary Board characterized

Respondent Buffington's misconduct as "very limited acts of

legal representation for a short time frame while on inactive

status." (D.Bd. Rpt. 10) Like Respondent Buffington,

Respondent Price engaged in "limited acts" of unauthorized

19

practice of law. Moreover, both Respondent Price and

Respondent Buffington share the following mitigating factors:

no record of discipline; admission of misconduct; and

immediate corrective action.

46. There is even precedent for imposing private

discipline if the unauthorized practice of law is limited to

one client matter. See , e . g . , In re Anonymous No . 64 DE 92 , 32

Pa. D.&C.4th 117 (1995) (private reprimand imposed on attorney

with no prior record of discipline who engaged in the

unauthorized practice of law in one matter; attorney's willful

failure to appear for private reprimand resulted in public

censure); In re Anonymous No . 201 DR 2003 , (D.Bd. Order dated

11/22/04) (attorney received a private reprimand for, in ter

a l i a engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in one

client matter, for failing in four client matters to notify

his clients, the courts, and opposing counsel of his transfer

to inactive status, and for failing to withdraw his appearance

in three matters pending before the Superior Court of

Pennsylvania).

47. In view of the limited nature of Respondent's

unauthorized practice of law, Petitioner and Respondent submit

that a six-month suspension is appropriate discipline for

Respondent's misconduct after weighing precedent and

considering Respondent's admission that at minimum, she had

20

actual notice of her imminent transfer to inactive status and

deliberately chose to remain ignorant of her eligibility to

practice law. The Disciplinary Board has previously stated

that "it is not unreasonable to expect an attorney to be

continuously aware of the status of his privilege to practice

law." In re Anonymous No . 123 BB 96, 41 Pa. D.&C.4th 290, 298-

299 (1998) (six-month suspension).

WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent respectfully request

that:

a. Pursuant to Rule 215(e) and 215(g), Pa.R.D.E.,

the three-member panel of the Disciplinary

Board review and approve the above Joint

Petition In Support Of Discipline On Consent

and file its recommendation with the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania in which it is

recommended the Supreme Court enter an Order:

(i) suspending Respondent from the practice

of law for a period of six months; and

(ii) directing Respondent to comply with all

of the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E,

b. Pursuant to Rule 215(i), the three-member

panel of the Disciplinary Board order

Respondent to pay the necessary expenses

incurred in the investigation of this matter

21

as a condition to the grant of the Petition

and that all expenses be paid by Respondent

before the imposition of discipline under Rule

215(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Respectfully submitted,

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

PAUL J. KILLION

CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

Richard Hernandez

Disciplinary Counsel

and

By

Ruth Ann Price

Respondent




Petitioner :

: No.

V.

RUTH ANN PRICE,

DB 2006



VERIFICATION

The statements contained in the foregoing Joint Petition

In Support of Discipline on Consent Under Rule 215(d),

Pa.R.D.E. are true and correct to the best of our knowledge or

information and belief and are made subject to the penalties

of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to

authorities.

6

z

Date

i 3/200 c-

Date

Richard Hernandez

Disciplinary Counsel

Ruth Ann Price

Respondent




Petitioner :

: No.

V.

RUTH ANN PRICE,

DB 2006



AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 215(d), Pa.R.D.E.

Respondent, Ruth Ann Price, hereby states that she

consents to the imposition of a suspension from the practice

of law for a period of six months as jointly recommended by

Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and Respondent in

the Joint Petition In Support Of Discipline On Consent and

further states that:

1. Her consent is freely and voluntarily rendered; she

is not being subjected to coercion or duress; she is fully

aware of the implications of submitting the consent; and she

has/has not consulted with counsel in connection with the

decision to consent to discipline;

2. She is aware that there is presently pending an

investigation into allegations that she has been guilty of

misconduct as set forth in the Joint Petition;

3. She acknowledges that the material facts set forth

in the Joint Petition are true; and

4. She consents because she knows that if charges

predicated upon the matter under investigation were filed, she

could not successfully defend against them.

Sworn to and subscribed

before me this ?

day of .7472,4E,

ayti,

Ruth Ann Price

Respondent

, 2006.

Notary Public e"

St.04

11\;, AW45. g,,C1

office of disciplinary counsel, : no. 1179 disciplinary … · 2006-12-05 · rendel's claims...

Documents