|
egarding two attorneys from Allentown, Pennsylvania; one is now a respected state representative
who has been re-elected to office and who gave up being an attorney at his own law firm and the other
is a laughing stock who hides in shame after word has gotten around about his unethical conduct and
legal system abuse.
Daylin Leach has never been charged with unethical conduct.
Daylin Leach has never been convicted of felonious assault.
Daylin Leach has never been disciplined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Daylin Leach is a successful and re-elected state representative of Pennsylvania.
Daylin Leach gave up his successful law firm listed with the Lehigh County Bar Assn
as being in good standing with a fine reputation to run for state representative which he
won despite a smear campaign made against him by Edeiken's Frumpies.
Yale F. Edeiken is none of the above.
Yale F. Edeiken is a big fat laughing stock of the Lehigh County legal community.
Yale F. Edeiken has been charged with unethical conduct and reprimanded numerous times.
Yale F. Edeiken has been convicted of assaulting a female deputy sheriff.
Yale F. Edeiken has been disciplined numerous times by the disciplinary board.
Yale F. Edeiken is not successful and had to sell his house and he now lives in an apartment.
Yale F. Edeiken had to file for bankruptcy in 1997 and what sort of any kind of a successful attorney
goes bankrupt?
Yale F. Edeiken has never had his own law firm period.
Yale F. Edeiken could of made something of his life but his mental illness kept him from any
chance of success.
Yale F. Edeiken is a big fat loser who now hides in shame since his ass was kicked and also
because he lacked intestinal fortitude to file his brief for his appeal against Tavish's
victory. Was Yale afraid to have all of the fabrication of evidence exposed which he swore to
in a civil court?
Yale F. Edeiken is documented as showing contempt and disrespect for the highest court in his state
and is it no wonder he has been black balled by the local legal community because of such maniacal
conduct. Yale F. Edeiken has given local county judges the same respect he gave the judges of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The following documents Yale _Fatboy_ Edeiken's disrespect for the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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
|
| |
| |
|
