Update :
Fina argues his case against the ODC in Philadelphia on July 27, 31 and August 1.
9:30 AM
District 1 Offices
1601 Market Street
Suite 3320
Phila PA 19103
Phone - 215.560.6296
Open to the public.
Here is an article about the case in law360.com
Pa. Board Seeks Censure For Ex-PSU GC In Sandusky Probe
by Matt Fair
Law360 (July 13, 2018, 4:05 PM EDT) -- Attorney ethics investigators are pushing to have an ex-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice and onetime general counsel to Penn State University publicly censured for purported conflicts of interests stemming from her representation of three school administrators who were eventually charged as part of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal.
The state’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel said in a brief on Wednesday that Cynthia Baldwin had either failed to understand or simply ignored the potential conflicts created by her simultaneous representation of the three administrators, each of whom was ultimately charged with lying to a grand jury about their knowledge of Sandusky’s conduct, and the university itself.
“At a critical moment, [Baldwin] failed miserably in protecting the foundation of the criminal justice system, the absolute right to counsel,” the office argued. “Even more importantly, she failed to protect the entitlement of the client to the unfettered loyalty of counsel.”
Baldwin, who served a two-year stint on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as a gubernatorial appointee before joining Penn State in February 2010, is also facing accusations that she violated attorney-client privilege and confidentiality protections when she testified to the grand jury about conversations she’d had with the three administrators regarding what they knew about Sandusky.
The ODC’s petition against Baldwin stems from her appearances alongside former Penn State president Graham Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Timothy Curley as they were questioned by state prosecutors as part of a grand jury investigation into Sandusky.
Schultz and Curley were charged alongside Sandusky in November 2011 for allegedly lying to the grand jury about a report they’d received in February 2001 that Sandusky had been seen showering naked with a young boy in a university locker room.
Spanier was ultimately charged as well the following November after investigators discovered emails showing that the three men had discussed reporting Sandusky to child welfare authorities in the wake of the February 2001 incident but had ultimately opted to remain silent.
Charges of perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice against the three administrators were eventually thrown out by a state appeals court in January 2016 after a three-judge panel found that they had been effectively denied counsel during their grand jury appearances due to the fact that Baldwin's allegiance was actually to the university and not to the three men individually.
A hearing in Baldwin’s disciplinary case was
held in Pittsburgh in May.
Baldwin has argued in her defense that she explained to each of the administrators that she could only represent them on a limited basis and that any duties to them were limited by her duties to Penn State.
But ODC pointed to grand jury transcripts in which the three men told prosecutors that they were being represented by Baldwin.
“Respondent did not either correct or qualify any of the statements by Mr. Curley, Mr. Schultz or Dr. Spanier,” the office argued in its brief. “It is submitted, therefore, that she appeared on their behalf as individual counsel.”
Baldwin has also argued that the three administrators lied to her about what they knew about Sandusky’s conduct such that she had no way of knowing their interests were in any way divergent from the university’s interests.
But the ODC countered that argument in its brief on Wednesday as it pointed out that Schultz and Curley had provided differing accounts over whether they believed that the February 2001 incident had involved sexual activity between Sandusky and the boy.
“The difference in their descriptions in their interviews and testimony should have alerted [Baldwin], who was present for all of it, that their stated memories and versions of events differed in at least one important respect,” the brief said. “Mr. Curley said that there was no mention of sexual contact in 2001, and Mr. Schultz said there was. This alone should have alerted her that their stories were not consistent and that separate counsel was necessary for each of them.”
An attorney for Baldwin declined to comment when contacted on Friday.
ODC is represented by Chief Disciplinary Counsel Paul Killion and Disciplinary Counsel Samuel Napoli.
Baldwin is represented by Charles De Monaco, Robert Tintner and Jana Volante Walshak of
Fox Rothschild LLP.
The case is Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cynthia Baldwin, case number 151 DB 2017, before the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
--Editing by John Campbell.
Update: This story has been updated to reflect that an attorney for Baldwin declined to comment.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1062824/pa-board-seeks-censure-for-ex-psu-gc-in-sandusky-probe
