On December 7, 2022, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the Petition for Reinstatement of Dravosburg’s attorney over the case of mishandling of OLTA accounts. This case is entitled “In the Matter of William James Helzlsouer” with Case No. 197 DB 2018.
Petitioner was initially suspended for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in three separate matters involving neglect, mishandling of his OLTA account by allowing his adult son unauthorized access to the account, failing to hold entrusted funds properly, failing to promptly refund unearned fees, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended.
The Petitioner filed a Petition for reinstatement on August 6, 2021. The Disciplinary Board recommended that the petition be denied upon failure to meet his burden of proving moral qualifications and competency.
The filing states:
‘Along with the required Reinstatement Questionnaire (“Questionnaire”), Petitioner provided false or substantially inaccurate answers to questions on the Questionnaire
- Question 8 states, in pertinent part, “To the best of your knowledge, have you ever been the subject of a disciplinary complaint not revealed hereinabove.” Petitioner answered “No” despite his knowledge and awareness of the two complaints at C4-20-446 and C4-20-914 filed against him during his current period of suspension.’
The filing continues:
‘Petitioner’s Questionnaire included three incomplete answers: a. Question 3 (findings of misconduct): Petitioner failed to provide any answer as to the findings of misconduct upon which his suspension was based and failed to attach the Report and Recommendation of the Board pertaining to his misconduct. b. Question 7(a) (discipline by other courts): Petitioner failed to divulge that he had been suspended from the practice of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.’
The court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove his burden by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in the law required for admission to practice. Additionally, Petitioner failed to meet his burden that his resumption of the practice of law within the Commonwealth will be neither detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest.
The Disposition states:
“The Petition for Reinstatement is denied. The petitioner is ordered to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.”
Mr. Helzlsouer’s info can be found on Linkedin. He attended the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, graduating in 1973. Helzlsouer practices in Dravosburg, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.