On December 2, 2022, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the Petition for Reinstatement of a Conneaut Lake, Crawford County Attorney William Jay Gregg. The case is entitled ‘In the Matter of William Jay Gregg’ with Case #210 DB 2009.
Petitioner was initially disbarred from the practice of law. He voluntarily resigned from the practice, admitting violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct pertaining to mishandling his IOLTA accounts and engaging in dishonest conduct by making misleading statements to the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security relating to the funds in the IOLTA accounts. The Supreme Court accepted Petitioner’s resignation and disbarred him on consent on which afterward, the petitioner filed a Petition for Reinstatement. However, the Board recommended that the petitioner’s first reinstatement be denied on the basis of his post-disbarment conduct involving his IOLTA account and the Gramas judgment, as well as his lack of genuine remorse. Hence, this second petition,
The filing states:
‘Petitioner testified regarding the judgments against him. As to the Gramas judgment, Petitioner acknowledged that he did not disclose it on the 2016 Questionnaire because he did not recall it as an outstanding judgment, and admitted it was a mistake not to list it. Petitioner acknowledged that his use of the words “small matter” to describe Grama’s judgment during his first reinstatement proceeding was not proper to express what he meant.’
The filing continues:
‘Petitioner accepted responsibility for his misconduct and expressed genuine remorse for his actions that led to his voluntary resignation and disbarment on consent, and for his actions following his disbarment. Petitioner acknowledged that the Court’s denial of his first reinstatement petition was justified. Petitioner now talks openly about his past problems, whereas at the time of his first reinstatement proceeding, he was reluctant to acknowledge his misconduct and tell people about it.’
The filing further alleges that:
‘Following his disbarment, Petitioner obtained nonlegal employment in real estate as a title abstractor. He began work for Jim Bourbeau Land Services n/k/a Appalachian Energy Consultants in 2010 and later obtained additional title abstract work with Back Roads Solutions, a land project management company. The petitioner performs his title services as an independent contractor.’
The Court states that the Petitioner’s misconduct, while a breach of his ethical responsibilities, is not so egregious as to prevent reinstatement. Therefore, the petition for reinstatement can be granted.
The Disposition states:
“AND NOW, this 2nd day of December 2022, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted. The petitioner is ordered to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement. See Pa.R.D.E. 218.”
Mr. Gregg practices in Conneaut Lake, Crawford County, Pennsylvania. He has been licensed in Pennsylvania. His info can be found online at LegalDictionaries.com
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
