2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

patients, the Attorney General of California revoked Czmus’ license to practice medicine inCalifornia. Czmus’ New York license was also revoked after a reciprocal disciplinaryproceeding was conducted by the New York Licensing Board.In 1992, unable to practice medicine, Czmus was accepted at Temple University Schoolof Law. In his law school application, Czmus failed to disclose that he had attended medicalschool, received medical licenses, lived in California, worked as a physician, had disciplinaryproceedings in California and New York and had both states’ medical licenses revoked.Furthermore, Czmus falsely represented in an application to a law firm that he held medicallicenses in California and New York.In 1995, Czmus submitted applications to sit for the Pennsylvania and New Jersey barexaminations, and failed to include in either bar application any mention of his medicaleducation, career, or disciplinary proceedings. Additionally, Czmus falsely represented that helived in Delaware and worked for Kennard Lab Associates as a lab supervisor during the time hewas actually working as a physician in California. Czmus passed both bar examinations, andeach state’s character and fitness evaluation failed to reveal his falsifications.In 1998, the New Jersey disciplinary authorities learned that Czmus was a formerphysician with a record of professional misconduct and discipline, and they began aninvestigation into Czmus’ background. During an interview with an investigator, Czmus liedabout his past and attributed the discrepancies on his application to confusion.In November 1999 and January 2000, Czmus began seeing two psychiatrists whodiagnosed him with various psychiatric disorders. Although Czmus’ psychiatrists attributed hisfalsifications, in part, to his psychiatric disorders, the New Jersey Supreme Court found thatCzmus had violated two rules of professional conduct, and his license to practice law wasrevoked for two years.Subsequently, the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition fordiscipline charging Czmus with violations of Pennsylvania Rules of Profession Conduct 8.1(a)and 8.4(b)-(d). On June 5, 2001, a Hearing Committee appointed by the ODC recommended thatCzmus’ license to practice law be suspended for five years, followed by a two-year probationaryperiod. The ODC rejected the recommendation of the Hearing Committee, however, and heldthat Czmus’ violations “required disbarment.”The Supreme Court reviewed the ODC’s disciplinary actions and upheld Czmus’disbarment, holding that, “we find respondent’s level of fraud, which transcended professionsand jurisdictions, requires disbarment.” Czmus, 889 A.2d at 1205. Discussing the distinctionbetween disbarment and suspension, the Court explained that disbarment is appropriate in casesof such blatant untruthfulness:Only disbarment, which places a higher burden on respondent if heshould seek readmittance, will properly protect the goals of theprofession and require respondent to be totally candid to thereviewing tribunal before his readmittance will be considered.177