On Friday, January 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ordered the temporary suspension of Reading Attorney Thomas Patrick Connelly, Jr.
The case is styled In the Matter of Thomas Patrick Connelly, Jr. and was brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel under case no. 166 DB 2022.
The temporary suspension was in consideration of the Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board concerning the disciplinary charges against Respondent pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(5), which states:
The Board on its own motion, or upon the petition of Disciplinary Counsel, may issue a rule to show cause why the respondent-attorney should not be placed on temporary suspension whenever it appears that the respondent-attorney has disregarded an applicable provision of the Enforcement Rules, failed to maintain or produce the records required to be maintained and produced under Pa.R.P.C. 1.15(c) and subdivisions (e) and (g) of Enforcement Rule 221 in response to a request or demand authorized by Enforcement Rule 221(g) or any provision of the Disciplinary Board Rules, failed to comply with a valid subpoena or engaged in other conduct that in any such instance materially delays or obstructs the conduct of a proceeding under these rules.
The rule to show cause shall be returnable within ten days. If the response to the rule to show cause raises issues of fact, the Board Chair may direct that a hearing be held before a member of the Board who shall submit a report to the Board upon the conclusion of the hearing. If the period for response to the rule to show cause has passed without a response having been filed, or after consideration of any response and any report of a Board member following a hearing under this paragraph, the Board may recommend to the Supreme Court that the respondent-attorney be placed on temporary suspension.
The recommendation of the Board shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court as provided in subdivision (e) of this rule, although the time for either party to file with the Court a petition for review of the recommendation or determination of the Board shall be fourteen days after the entry of the Board’s recommendation or determination, and any answer or responsive pleading shall be filed within ten days after service of the petition for review.
Accordingly, the court ruled against the Respondent based on the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation and the response thereto and placed Respondent on temporary suspension until further action by the Court.
Respondent’s rights to seek dissolution or amendment of the Order and to request accelerated disposition of the instant disciplinary matter are specifically preserved.
Mr. Thomas Patrick Connelly, Jr. has practiced in Reading, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 2005. He has been admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, license no. 200586, as well as in New Jersey. His info can be found on LinkedIn.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
