HARRISBURG – A state Supreme Court majority ruled that a New Jersey attorney permitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and who failed to disclose his disciplinary history on an application, will lose his license for three years.
Though the Court’s Disciplinary Board recommended only an 18-month suspension of license for attorney Edward Harrington Heyburn, the Court instead chose to impose a longer sentence. The sentence will take effect on July 22.
Heyburn was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1997 and placed on inactive status in March 2006 for non-compliance with state continuing legal education requirements, according to the Disciplinary Board’s report.
Heyburn had collaborated as co-counsel with attorney Anthony R. Fiore of Gage Fiore in Lawrenceville, N.J. on approximately 15 matters in New Jersey courts.
“In 2011, an associate in Fiore’s firm filed a complaint in the matter captioned Susan Dogan, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Jesse L. Dogan, v. Pocono Medical Center Et.Al, in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2011-01367. In 2015, Fiore assumed representation of Dogan. In December 2017, Heyburn agreed to act as co-counsel on behalf of Dogan,” the Disciplinary Board’s report says.
“Sometime in January 2018, Fiore requested Brenna Burcher, his litigation support professional, to prepare a draft motion for admission pro hac vice in the Dogan matter on behalf of Heyburn. Burcher prepared the initial draft of the motion after consulting with Heyburn, who provided her with a sample motion for admission pro hac vice. In connection with the motion, Burcher sent to the Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts Board a check for $100 and a pro hac vice submission form filled out by Heyburn.”
On the form, Heyburn listed only New Jersey as a jurisdiction he was admitted to practice law, even though he had been admitted for practice in Pennsylvania in 1997.
The form also specified that Heyburn was not the subject of any disciplinary proceedings, which Heyburn communicated to Fiore under penalty of perjury.
However, Heyburn had been the subject of two prior disciplinary proceedings in New Jersey, culminating in the administration of censures by the New Jersey Supreme Court on Nov. 13, 2013 and June 18, 2015, and was the subject of disciplinary proceedings in a third matter, which eventually resulted in the administration of a censure by the New Jersey Supreme Court on July 9, 2018.
Among his three disciplinary experiences from 2013-2018, Heyburn’s transgressions included violation of attorney advertising rules, lack of diligence, failure to communicate with the client, failure to safeguard property, failure to cooperate with ethics investigators, misrepresentation by silence, negligent misappropriation of client trust funds and record-keeping violations.
After the Dogan matter proceeded to trial from Sept. 30, 2019 through Oct. 3, 2019, at which Heyburn and Fiore acted as co-counsel, Heyburn was notified by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel on April 13, 2020 – which filed a petition for discipline against Heyburn, charging him with violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 203(b)(7).
Heyburn did not file a response to the petition for discipline.
Heyburn later testified at the disciplinary hearing on Nov. 4, 2020, saying he was unfamiliar with the process of being admitted pro hac vice and assumed that he was no longer a licensed Pennsylvania attorney since his “registration had lapsed.”
“Heyburn apologized for his misconduct, expressed remorse and embarrassment and realized that he ‘should have slowed down, paid attention, and made sure the documents were accurate.’ He further testified that he is ‘ready to accept whatever the consequences are,” the report stated.
“The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously recommends that the respondent, Edward Harrington Heyburn, be suspended for eighteen months from the practice of law in this Commonwealth. It is further recommended that the expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter are to be paid by the respondent.”
However, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania instead imposed a three-year sentence for the loss of Heyburn’s license to practice law in the state.
In a dissent from the majority, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Max Baer and Justice Kevin M. Dougherty explained they would have imposed an even longer sentence, of five years.
The Court opted not to explain its rationale in further detail.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board case 58 DB 2020
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com