|
reviously posted by Tavish
From: Ward Cleaver <Ward_Cleaver@mayfield01.net>
Subject: Yale F. Edeiken PUBLIC CENSURE Text and Links V2.0
Message-ID: <ipqmb15sgvqt5i20uj0vqoq7vkp0fdjbpj@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
Date: 24 Jun 2005 02:14:55 GMT
---Famous Last Words Series-- Yale F. Edeiken
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/cdfddbb68d1d5b39
Archived locally as: YaleSuedTwice
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <yawen@enter.net>
Subject: KOOK WEBSITE
Date: 2000/01/02
Message-ID: <38700e8b@news3.enter.net>
"I have never been charged with any unethical activity relating to the
practice of law..."
IS THAT SO? Here you are caught lying once again Yale:
http://padisciplinaryboard.org/attdiscdcd.php?id=40290
(Link active October 29, 2003. Archived locally as: shyster_censured)
Attorney ID - 40290
Edeiken, Yale F.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Attorney Inquiry
Attorney ID Case County District
40290 122 DB 95 Lehigh II Public Censure Administered 10/20/98
<STOP>
A PDF file is available which gives a report on the above
122 DB 95 against Shyster Yale Fatso Edeiken:
http://padisciplinaryboard.org/attopinion.php?case=122DB95
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/disciplinaryboard/dboardopinions/122DB95.RPT.pdf
(Link active October 28, 2003. Archived locally as: "Edeiken_Gets_His" and
122DB95.RPT)
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 403, Disciplinary Docket No.3
Petitioner :
: No. 122DB1995
v. :
:
Attorney Registration No. 40290 :
Yale F. Edeiken Esq., :
885 COLD SPRING ROAD; APARTMENT 2 :
ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 :
610-435-9820 :
Respondent : Lehigh County
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 208( d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Disciplinary Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania ("Board") herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your
Honorable Court with respect to the above-captioned Petition for Discipline.
I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
A Petition for Discipline was filed on May 24, 1996 against Respondent,
Yale F. Edeiken, Esquire.
The Petition alleged that Respondent failed to appear for a Private Reprimand
scheduled for December 7, 1995. The Petition charged Respondent with violation
ofPa.R.D.E. 203(b)(2), as well as Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), 1.1 ,
1.3, 1.15(b), and 1.16(d).
A hearing was held on January 9, 1997, before Hearing Committee [ ]
comprised of Chair [ ], Esquire, and Member [ ], Esquire. Respondent was
represented at the hearing by [ ], Esquire. Petitioner was represented by [ ],
Esquire. The Committee filed a Report on September 22, 1997 and recommended a
public censure. No exceptions were filed by the parties.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting held on
November 14, 1997.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner, whose principal office is now located at Suite 3710, One
Oxford Centre, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of
the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereafter Pa.R.D.E.), with
the power and the duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct
of an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various
provisions of the aforesaid Rules.
2. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on March 29, 1984.
3. In accordance with Rule 208(a)(5), Pa.R.D.E., it was determined that
Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand with condition as a result of
misconduct arising from his representation of [A] by his grandmother and legal
guardian, [B].
4. By notice dated August 28, 1995, the Secretary of the Disciplinary
Board notified Respondent that a three member panel of the Board had determined
that Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand with condition.
5. The Notice of August 28, 1995, also informed Respondent that he had
the option of attending the Private Reprimand or notifying the Secretary, in
writing, within twenty days of the date of the Notice, that Respondent wished
the matter to be referred for institution of formal proceedings.
6. The Notice included a copy of the Board's Order directing the Private
Reprimand with the following condition:
At least ten days prior to the scheduled private reprimand,
Respondent shall submit proof that he has:
1. Delivered to [B] each and every document relating to his
representation of [B] or her grandson.
2. Provided to [B] the name of his professional malpractice carrier
and policy number, if any.
3. Costs, if any, are to be paid by Respondent.
7. Respondent did not demand that formal proceedings be instituted
against him.
8. As a result of Respondent's failure to demand formal proceedings,
Respondent is deemed to have conclusively violated Rules of Professional Conduct
1.1, 1.3, 1.15(b), and 1. 16(d), as set forth in the Notice of August 28, 1995.
9. By Notice dated November 3, 1995, Respondent was directed to appear
before the Board on December 7, 1995 to receive a Private Reprimand.
10. Respondent received the Board's Notice, which was sent by regular
and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent's office address.
11. Respondent knew he was to appear on December 7, 1995 to receive a
Private Reprimand.
12. Respondent failed to appear and failed to provide proof of his
compliance with the condition.
13. By letter of December 11, 1995, Respondent was directed by James J.
Powell, then Board Chair, to provide good cause for his failure to appear and
noncompliance with the condition.
14. Respondent received the letter, which was sent regular and certified
mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent's address.
15. Respondent was to reply to Board Chair Powell's letter on or before
December 29, 1995.
16. As of the date of the filing of the Petition for Discipline in this
matter, Respondent has not replied to the December 11, 1995 letter.
17. At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent made a statement of remorse
for his actions and testified that he did not show the respect that was owed to
the profession. (N.T. 11)
18. Respondent received an Informal Admonition in 1995 and a Private
Reprimand in 1993.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By his actions as set forth above, Respondent violated the following Rule
of Disciplinary Enforcement and Rules of Professional Conduct:
1. Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(2) - willful failure to appear before the Board for a
Private Reprimand is grounds for discipline.
2. RPC 8.4{ d) - It is prof
|
| |
| |
|
