Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Perhaps @lubrano can remind us again about why the "and one day" component of the suspension is significant.
Judge Cleland decided Fina and Eshbach set a trap, therefore it couldn't have possibly been one of them.When is Shapiro going to prosecute him for the grand jury leaks? After all, no one is above the law. there’s a former AG sitting in jail for the very same offense.
Not a lawyer - obviously - but IIRC the suspension of less than one year results in an automatic "reinstatement" after the period is up..... but a suspension of over one year ("...and a day...") requires the person suspended to apply for reinstatement (which is not automatic).Perhaps @lubrano can remind us again about why the "and one day" component of the suspension is significant.
Not a lawyer - obviously - but IIRC the suspension of less than one year results in an automatic "reinstatement" after the period is up..... but a suspension of over one year ("...and a day...") requires the person suspended to apply for reinstatement (which is not automatic).
I think that is why you often see the "and a day" rulings.
That is as best as ICR, others with more precise knowledge can - hopefully - chime in.
Been saying this for a long time (obviously) but how Cindy "Her Honor" Baldwin was free...… while Kathy Kane went to prison.... tells one just about all you need to know vav the PA Judiciary:Here's a link to the 8-page opinion on Fina.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-106-2019cs.pdf?cb=1
I don't believe this link was in the OP.
Also, that opinion references a much longer, 71-page opinion, for Baldwin in which she faced reprimand.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-63-2019mo.pdf?cb=1
The PA Supreme Court did not suspend Baldwin. I think that's mainly because she's not practicing anymore. And in the last couple pages it seems as if they weren't going to reprimand her, but then they cited her utter lack of remorse:
While we agree with the Disciplinary Board's acknowledgement that Respondent has never been the subject of prior disciplinary proceedings, this mitigating factor is offset by her lack of remorse for her actions. In her briefs filed with this Court, Respondent has seen fit to cast blame for her problems on everyone involved here including the Disciplinary Board, the ODC, the Superior Court, and the Individual Clients.
...
Even against this background and with confidence that the Respondent is unlikely to violate our Rules of Professional Conduct again, we find it necessary to impose discipline in the nature of a public reprimand to be administered by the Disciplinary Board. This is because we are concerned that Respondent has never contemplated, much less expressed, remorse. It is our belief that a public reprimand will reinforce our trust that the Respondent's legal career will go forward without another blemish.
We hereby impose discipline in the form of a public reprimand, to be administered by the Disciplinary Board. Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of investigation and prosecution in this matter.
Just read that Fran Fina received a suspension of his law license of one year and one day. This means his reinstatement is not automatic.
I think he deserves a firing squad.Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Too bad it took so long.
Would SCOTUS really want to bother with this one??
Here's a link to the 8-page opinion on Fina.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-106-2019cs.pdf?cb=1
I don't believe this link was in the OP.
Also, that opinion references a much longer, 71-page opinion, for Baldwin in which she faced reprimand.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-63-2019mo.pdf?cb=1
The PA Supreme Court did not suspend Baldwin. I think that's mainly because she's not practicing anymore. And in the last couple pages it seems as if they weren't going to reprimand her, but then they cited her utter lack of remorse:
While we agree with the Disciplinary Board's acknowledgement that Respondent has never been the subject of prior disciplinary proceedings, this mitigating factor is offset by her lack of remorse for her actions. In her briefs filed with this Court, Respondent has seen fit to cast blame for her problems on everyone involved here including the Disciplinary Board, the ODC, the Superior Court, and the Individual Clients.
...
Even against this background and with confidence that the Respondent is unlikely to violate our Rules of Professional Conduct again, we find it necessary to impose discipline in the nature of a public reprimand to be administered by the Disciplinary Board. This is because we are concerned that Respondent has never contemplated, much less expressed, remorse. It is our belief that a public reprimand will reinforce our trust that the Respondent's legal career will go forward without another blemish.
We hereby impose discipline in the form of a public reprimand, to be administered by the Disciplinary Board. Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of investigation and prosecution in this matter.
I'm thinkin' no.....Would SCOTUS really want to bother with this one??
This should be posted in the least stressful jobs thread! LOL!So what will Frank do without his law license? Clerk at one of those truck stop porn shops along I81?
So what will Frank do without his law license? Clerk at one of those truck stop porn shops along I81?
I’m hoping he loses everything and he and his wife are dumpster diving for their meals.So what will Frank do without his law license? Clerk at one of those truck stop porn shops along I81?
Frank Fina and Michigan both eating it at the same time. Been a good day.
This is a pretty good summary of the events:Recall my son wrote a paper last year about JoePa getting railroaded.
He received the tweet regarding today’s news and ask a question that I couldn’t answer.
What specific conduct of Fina’s got him to this judgement?
TIA
OL