On Tuesday, January 23, 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an order denying the petition for reinstatement of attorney Louis Alfred Piccone.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Louis Alfred Piccone,” with case no. 102 DB 2018.
Piccone has been suspended from practicing law in Pennsylvania since December 2018, when the Supreme Court issued a reciprocal three-year suspension based on disciplinary action taken against him by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO had suspended Piccone for three years due to instances of unauthorized practice of law in multiple jurisdictions as well as before the USPTO itself.
On March 16, 2022, Piccone filed a petition seeking reinstatement of his Pennsylvania law license. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel opposed reinstatement and a hearing was held before a District I Hearing Committee in November 2022. Both Piccone and ODC presented evidence and testimony at the hearing.
In its report, the Disciplinary Board found that Piccone had failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is morally qualified, competent, and learned in the law to resume practicing. The Board highlighted several issues, including Piccone’s failure to demonstrate remorse for his past misconduct or accept responsibility.
Throughout the reinstatement proceedings, Piccone consistently maintained that he had done nothing wrong and that the disciplinary actions against him were improperly decided. He characterized the original proceedings as a “modern-day lynching” and stated he felt no need to express remorse. The Board found this indicated Piccone did not comprehend the seriousness of his wrongdoing.
Additionally, evidence presented at the hearing showed Piccone engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his suspension period by drafting legal documents for family members and other individuals. The Board determined this, along with Piccone omitting a pertinent lawsuit from his reinstatement questionnaire, demonstrated a lack of moral qualifications.
The Board also found Piccone lacked an understanding of Pennsylvania reinstatement procedures and professional decorum expected of lawyers. He continued to re-litigate previous arguments rather than acknowledge unfavorable rulings. Ultimately, the Board concluded allowing Piccone to resume practice would be detrimental to the integrity of the bar and administration of justice.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Board and denied Piccone’s petition for reinstatement.
The Disposition states:
“AND NOW, this 23rd day of January 2024, the Petition for Reinstatement is denied. The petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement. See Pa.R.D.E. 21 8(f).”
According to padisciplinaryboard.org, Mr. Piccone acquired his law license in Pennsylvania in 1989.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.