Philadelphia Lawyers: Policing the Law in Pennsylvania

Brian K. Pinaire, Lehigh University
Milton Heumann, Rutgers University
Christian Scarlett, Rutgers University

Abstract

Unlike other professions within the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania attorneys “police” themselves, meaning that ethical infractions and ramifications of criminal convictions are addressed not by the government, but rather by disciplinary entities within the profession. Recent socio-legal and social science research has addressed the various statutory “collateral consequences” that attach to criminal convictions, but we know comparatively little about consequential discipline instituted outside the purview of the state. Based on an examination of 419 disciplinary dispositions from 2005-2009, as well as interviews with elites, this study provides the first-ever examination of the process and legal-political implications of peer-policing of the law in Pennsylvania. Specifically, we set forth four primary findings. First, despite global perceptions to the contrary, Pennsylvania attorneys are punished rather harshly by their peers, at least with respect to publicized discipline (certain disciplinary actions are not publicized and hence not open to examination). Second, our study reveals a trend we are calling “disciplinary amplification” the tendency for sentences to increase rather than decrease in severity as cases proceed on appeal. Third, we highlight the increasing significance of discipline reached on “consent” and explore the striking parallels between this mode of disposition and the familiar varieties and vernacular of “plea bargaining” that are a staple of negotiations within criminal court settings. Finally, our data illustrate a counter-intuitive phenomenon we are calling “self-discipline,” or the tendency for certain suspended or disbarred attorneys to deliberately prolong their banishment as a tactic to eventually secure reinstatement.