On Friday, February 21, 2025, a three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania publicly reprimanded attorney Illon Ross Fish following a joint petition filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Fish himself. The reprimand stemmed from multiple instances of professional misconduct spanning several years and involving four separate client cases. In addition to the public reprimand, Fish was placed on a one-year probation period, with conditions requiring him to adhere to all Rules of Professional Conduct and Disciplinary Enforcement and to submit a sworn statement confirming compliance at the end of the term.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Illon Ross Fish,” with case no. 102 DB 2024.
The disciplinary action followed complaints from former clients and their families, detailing Fish’s failure to handle cases diligently, communicate effectively, and promptly refund unearned fees.
The first case involved Tatianna Cooper-Pierce, who hired Fish in April 2017 to pursue a civil claim against the Philadelphia Police Department and her apartment complex after an alleged warrantless search and assault. Fish filed a complaint in 2019 but repeatedly failed to comply with court orders for discovery, leading to sanctions and a temporary judgment against his client. Although the judgment was later vacated and a settlement reached, the board found Fish violated rules requiring competence and diligence.
In a second matter, Fish was retained by Manuel Pagan, Jr. in October 2020 to review his criminal case for a potential Post Conviction Relief Act petition. Pagan paid Fish $1,500 for a file review, but Fish did not complete the work or communicate results before the March 2021 deadline. After months of unreturned calls and a demand for a refund, Pagan received $1,500 from the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security, which Fish later reimbursed. The board cited violations including lack of diligence and failure to refund unearned fees promptly.
The third case centered on Courtney Williams, who paid Fish $10,320 starting in November 2021 to represent her son, Kaewon Kashif Layton, in a murder and firearms case. Fish entered his appearance in August 2022 but failed to consult with Layton or keep him informed, leading to multiple continuances. After Williams hired new counsel in January 2023 and requested a refund, Fish returned $8,320, with some funds tied to a separate matter. The board identified breaches in communication and refund obligations.
Finally, Fish represented Marquis Keels in a 2020 criminal case, initially charging $1,500 for a preliminary hearing. After Keels was held for court, Fish negotiated a $10,500 fee, later supplemented by a $15,000 bail assignment. Following Keels’ acquittal in November 2022, Fish delayed refunding the $4,500 balance despite repeated requests. The fund awarded Keels $4,500 in September 2024, which Fish repaid. The board noted violations in promptly delivering client property and protecting client interests.
The joint petition, filed on January 28, 2025, highlighted an aggravating factor: a 2017 informal admonition Fish received for similar issues in two prior cases. Mitigating factors included his remorse, cooperation with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, refunds to clients, and new office management procedures to improve client communication and case handling.
The agreed-upon discipline aims to ensure Fish’s ongoing compliance with professional standards while addressing his pattern of misconduct. Fish consented to the reprimand, acknowledging he could not successfully defend against the charges if prosecuted further.
The Disposition states:
“ORDERED that the said Illon Ross Fish of Philadelphia 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.
According to avvo.com, Mr. Fish is a criminal defense attorney in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He acquired his law license in Pennsylvania in 2005.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
