Josh J.T. Byrne

Obtained dismissal of claims in a civil rights action brought against their attorney client in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff brought claims for Deprivation of Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Conspiracy Against Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985), and Civil Conspiracy against their client. Jake and Josh filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Magistrate Judge agreed, issuing a report and recommendation for the claims to be dismissed, which the District Judge then adopted as the Court’s decision. No timely appeal was taken.

We received a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This decision both limits the use of offensive collateral estoppel in disciplinary matters and establishes that the standard of proof for disciplinary matters in Pennsylvania is clear and convincing evidence. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel had sought to utilize non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the respondent from disputing fact determinations by a bankruptcy judge when she sanctioned the respondent and his client. The Supreme Court determined that the burden of proof for the judge in issuing sanctions was something less than clear and convincing evidence and, therefore, collateral estoppel did not apply. In making its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the previously expressed standard of “preponderance of clear and satisfactory evidence” was confusing and archaic but is the functional equivalent of “clear and convincing.” 

We achieved an informal admonition, the lowest form of discipline which is non-public, for a lawyer client in a matter that involved alleged failures to appropriately represent clients and timely file appeals in six different criminal matters.

We achieved dismissal of a disciplinary complaint brought against our attorney client who was the victim of a sophisticated scam and sent IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts) funds belonging to another client out of the country.

In a highly unusual move in a case with potential national implications, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition for allowance of appeal seeking to have the decision of the Disciplinary Board changed from a private reprimand to a public reprimand. The defense successfully defeated this petition, thus maintaining the client’s privacy.

This case had potential national implications where the allegations by Disciplinary Counsel included 93 paragraphs and alleged violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct.

We obtained a dismissal of a declaratory judgment action against our clients, a national firm and its principal, who specialize in identifying and reclaiming lost property for consumers, who do not realize such lost property exists. Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action on the heels of plaintiff’s having suffered a smarting defeat in an attempted class action lawsuit against our clients. In that underlying litigation, the lower court dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit twice and the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. Plaintiff brought this action to preempt any attempts by our clients to someday bring a Dragonetti claim against plaintiff for filing the class action lawsuit in the underlying litigation without probable cause. We filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action, asserting that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was improper because it was asking the Court to make a decision on an issue that had not yet arisen. The Court granted our motion and soundly rejected Plaintiff’s claims, issuing an opinion that decisively stated “no amendment would save [plaintiff’s] Amended Complaint.” The lawsuit against our clients was dismissed with prejudice.