Pennsylvania Supreme Court Clarifies Clear and Convincing Standard in Attorney Disciplinary Cases

In the recent disciplinary matter of ODC v. Anonymous, 2025 WL 524221 (Pa. Feb. 12, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established the standard applicable to attorney disciplinary matters, expressly holding that the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) is required “to establish attorney misconduct with evidence that is sufficient to satisfy a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.” 

The respondent had represented a corporate creditor in bankruptcy court. During the course of the matter, the bankruptcy court found that the respondent and the respondent’s client had violated the automatic bankruptcy stay. The court awarded sanctions in favor of the debtors and against the respondent and the respondent’s client. Following the bankruptcy court’s decision, the ODC filed a petition for discipline, asserting that the respondent had violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. The ODC filed a motion to apply collateral estoppel to preclude the respondent from re-litigating certain matters that had given rise to the sanctions in the bankruptcy court. However, the standard applicable to the motion for sanctions in the bankruptcy court was “preponderance of the evidence,” not the then-applicable standard for attorney disciplinary matters, “clear and satisfactory.”

In response, the respondent argued that collateral estoppel should not apply because the then-applicable standard for attorney disciplinary matters, “clear and satisfactory,” was more stringent than the standard applied by the bankruptcy court judge. Ultimately, the question of whether collateral estoppel applied turned on the appropriate burden of proof in attorney disciplinary matters. Noting the lack of clarity in the existing burden, “clear and satisfactory,” as well as the quasi-criminal nature of attorney disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the standard of proof applicable to attorney disciplinary matters is “clear and convincing.” Collateral estoppel, therefore, could not apply. 

^{Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}