Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated due process by denying an attorney the opportunity to rebut a disciplinary report containing alleged inaccuracies before suspending him

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Office 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. ii PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS Petitioner: Joseph D. Lento. Esquire Respondent: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Office of Disciplinary Counsel iii RELATED CASE Office of Disciplinary Couns. v. Lento , Case No. 3063 DD3, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 1750 (11-19-24). Judgment entered on November. 19, 2024.