Joseph D. Lento v. Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel

The Pennsylvania Supreme Cour t’s Off ice of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) issued a 134-page Report, with 496 factual statements, followed by legal conclusions and proposed discipline against Petitioner. The Report contained a plethora of untruths, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations, and the investigation resulting in the Report was guided by an ODC attorney who had personal animus against the Petitioner. In O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (1997), Mr. Justice Stevens recognized that the “right to rebut the prosecutor’s arguments is a ‘hallmark of due process’.” However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to permit Petitioner to submit a rebuttal or response to the Report, although it then relied upon the Report with its inaccuracies and misstatements, to suspend Petitioner. This Honorable Court must determine whether Petitioner’s suspension as an attorney should be reversed because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Petitioner one of the very hallmarks of due process.