On Friday, August 4, 2023, the 3-member panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania publicly reprimanded Attorney Mark Steven Pearlstein.
The case is titled “Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mark Steven Pearlstein,” with case no. 105 DB 2023.
Charges cited Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct RPC 8.4(b), and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement 203(b)(1).
The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
The case can be traced back to a traffic incident leading to a road rage in Montgomery County involving Mr. Pearlstein where he brandished his handgun at the motorist he had an altercation with and discharged his handgun across the two-lane road. Mr. Pearlstein cited self-defense; and when the police arrived, he promptly surrendered his handgun to the authorities.
Mr. Pearstein and his adversary offered different accounts of the incident, Nevertheless, On November 1, 2022, before Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge, Steven T. O’Neill, Attorney Pearstein pled guilty to an amended account of disorderly conduct.
Although the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office accepted the amended account, the DA was not inclined to believe that Attorney Pearlstein’s life was in reasonable danger.
Forthwith, Attorney Pearstein reported his conviction to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; maintained he acted in self-defense, and indicated that if he be confronted with a similar situation, he’d still handle it the same way. Attorney Pearlstein reiterated his stance in the Statement of Position he submitted to the ODC.
In reaching the joint recommendation of a public reprimand, the ODC weighed up on some mitigating factors. Foremost is that the incident did not injure anybody, even Attorney Pearstein’s antagonist was unharmed. Mr. Pearlstein also fired the gun in a clear area, harming nobody. Additionally, Mr. Pearlstein’s status as a military veteran played a positive role, as he was not convicted of REAP or an assault charge, discipline, or any other criminal offense. He also forfeited his firearm voluntarily and cooperated fully with the police at the scene. Furthermore, he promptly reported the incident and fully cooperated with the ODC. Mr. Pearlstein acknowledged his misconduct, expressed sincere remorse, and unquestionably accepted the disciplinary measures imposed.
The absence of any aggravating factors, coupled with Attorney Pearlstein’s pristine record regarding substance abuse and other criminal misbehavior, has significantly influenced the ODC to recommend a public reprimand instead of a harsher discipline.
After careful review and approval of the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a public reprimand of Mark Steven Pearlstein.
The order reads:
“It is ORDERED that MARK STEVEN PEARLSTEIN be subjected to a PUBLIC REPRIMAND by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as provided in Rule 204(a) and Rule 205(c)(9) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement.”
Attorney Mark Steven Pearlstein acquired his law degree from the Temple University Beasley School of Law and has been in legal practice for 43 years. Click here for more info about Attorney Pearlstein.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
