IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of No. 932 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Nos. 113 DB 2004 MICHAEL RADBILL Attorney Registration No. 17053 PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT (Philadelphia) ORDER PERCURIAM: AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2015, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, the Petition for Reinstatement is denied. Petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 218(f). A True Copy John A. Vaskov, Esquire As Of 11/19/2015 Attest A I/ .J..,_ Deputy oonotaty Supreme ourt of Pennsylvania
18
Embed
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THEBEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of No. 932 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 No. 113 DB 2004 MICHAEL RADBILL
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In the Matter of No. 932 Disciplinary Docket No. 3
Nos. 113 DB 2004 MICHAEL RADBILL
Attorney Registration No. 17053
PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT (Philadelphia)
ORDER
PERCURIAM:
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2015, upon consideration of the Report
and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, the Petition for Reinstatement is
denied. Petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the
investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E.
218(f).
A True Copy John A. Vaskov, Esquire As Of 11/19/2015
Attest ~ A I/ .J..,_ Deputy oonotaty Supreme ourt of Pennsylvania
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In the Matter of No. 932 Disciplinary Docket No. 3
No. 113 DB 2004 MICHAEL RADBILL
Attorney Registration No. 17053
PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT (Philadelphia)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Pursuant to Rule 218(c)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary
Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania submits its
findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with respect to the above
captioned Petition for Reinstatement.
I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
By Order dated June 19, 2006, retroactive to July 29, 2004, the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania disbarred Michael Radbill. By Petition for Reinstatement filed on
February 25, 2010, Mr. Radbill requested reinstatement to the bar of Pennsylvania. He
subsequently requested leave to withdraw the petition, which was granted without
prejudice on March 31, 2011. Mr. Radbill filed a second Petition for Reinstatement on
1
May 15, 2014. Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Response to Petition on September
15, 2014 and opposed reinstatement.
A reinstatement hearing was held on December 10, 2014, before a District
I Hearing Committee comprised of Chair Alexander B. Giacobetti, Esquire and Members
Karen M. ·sanchez, Esquire and Sayde Joy Ladov, Esquire. Petitioner appeared prose.
Following the submission of briefs by the parties, the Hearing Committee
f iled a Report on April 22, 2015 and recommended that the Petition for Reinstatement
be denied.
Petitioner filed a Brief on Exceptions on May 8, 2015 and requested oral
argument before the Disciplinary Board.
Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a Brief Opposing Exceptions on May
22, 2015.
Oral argument was held on June 11 , 2015, before a three-member panel
of the Disciplinary Board.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting on
July 25, 2015.
II . FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board makes the following findings:
1. Petitioner is Michael Radbill. He was born in 1943 and was
admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1973. His
current attorney registration address is 1118 Warren Avenue, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002.
Petitioner is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
2
2. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was a sole practitioner
whose office was located at 1800 Callowhill Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130.
3. On September 18, 2003, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one
count of Health Care Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1347 and one count of Fraud and
False Statement in connection with a federal tax return , in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§7206(1 ). ODC-68.
4. On January 15, 2004, the Honorable Marvin Katz sentenced
Petitioner to serve a term of imprisonment of one year and one day and three years of
supervised release following Petitioner's release from prison; to make restitution in the
amount of $261 ,447.16; and , to pay a special assessment of $200. ODC-68.
5. Petitioner's criminal conduct that led to his guilty plea occurred from
1995 through 2000. ODC-68.
6. Petitioner represented twenty-nine (29) clients in personal injury
cases knowing that those clients were not injured and did not require medical treatment.
ODC-68.
7. In those twenty-nine (29) fraudulent personal injury cases, twenty
(20) insurance carriers were defrauded and their total loss amounted to $261,447.16.
ODC-68.
8. Over a thirty (30) year period, Petitioner used runners to solicit
personal injury cases and knew that the majority of the clients he represented in
personal injury cases were not injured. ODC-68.
9. Petitioner's federal tax returns for the years 1997 through 2000
contained false information, in that Petitioner underreported his earned income and
exaggerated and falsified his business expenses. ODC-68.
3
10. Petitioner concealed his income by negotiating settlement checks
at check cashing agencies or by depositing the settlement checks into his personal
account as opposed to his escrow account. ODC-6.8.
11. Over the tax years 1997 through 2000, Petitioner reported less than
24% of his gross income. ODC-68.
12. Petitioner's underreporting of his income and falsifying and
exaggerating business expenses resulted in the United States government incurring a
total tax loss of $235,788. ODC-68.
13. Petitioner was placed on temporary suspension by Order of the
Supreme Court dated July 29, 2004, and he was disbarred from the practice of law by
Order of the Supreme Court on June 19, 2006.
14. Before Petitioner's sentencing on January 15, 2004, he was
directed by a presentence investigator to complete a financial affidavit that requested
certain personal financial information. N.T. 116-117; ODC-52; ODC-68.
15. Petitioner failed to provide truthful information when completing the