 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Turman11/14/2003
Attorney Registration No. 73655 (Allegheny County)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Pursuant to Rule 218(c)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania submits its findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with respect to the above-- captioned Petition for Reinstatement.
I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner, David Wayne Turman, filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the bar of Pennsylvania on May 21, 2002. Petitioner was Suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day by Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated August 9, 1999.
A reinstatement hearing was held on October 29, 2002, before Hearing Committee 4.04 comprised of Chair Timothy R. Bonner, Esquire, and Members Christopher E. Mohney, Esquire, and Patrick J. Thomassey, Esquire. Petitioner appeared pro se.
The Committee filed a Report on March 21, 2003 and recommended that the Petition for Reinstatement be denied.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting of May 14, 2003.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner is David Wayne Turman. He was born in 1958 and was admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania in 1994. His current address is 1503 North Murtland Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15208.
2. By Order of the Supreme Court dated August 9, 1999, Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day.
3. The misconduct forming the basis of this suspension is as follows:
a. By Order of the Supreme Court dated August 7, 1997, Petitioner was held in contempt for willful violation of a Supreme Court Order transferring him to inactive status and directing him to comply with requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement.
b. After holding Petitioner in contempt, the Court referred the matter to the Disciplinary Board for recommendation of an appropriate sanction,
c. The Board recommended a Public Censure to the Court, and the Court, by Order of April 14, 1998, ordered that Petitioner be subjected to a Public Censure.
d. The Censure was scheduled for September 17, 1998. Petitioner failed to appear before the Court.
e. In a separate matter, by notice letter of November 18, 1997, Petitioner was directed to appear before Chief Disciplinary Counsel on December 16, 1997, to receive an Informal Admonition with Condition as a result of misconduct in handling a client matter.
f. Petitioner failed to appear on December 16, 1997 for his Informal Admonition, nor did he show good cause for his absence.
g. Petitioner was ordered to appear before the Board to receive a Private Reprimand with conditions scheduled for November 14, 1997 as a result of his misconduct in handling three client matters.
h. Petitioner failed to appear for the Private Reprimand and failed to provide proof that he fulfilled the conditions.
i. Petitioner did not establish good cause for his failure to appear for the private reprimand.
4. Petitioner indicated that he abused alcohol during the time frame of the misconduct.
5. Petitioner has a history of convictions for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, having pleaded guilty to four separate charges in 1991, 1994, and 1997. No formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated resultant
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|