Section 91.4. Enforcement

Enforcement Rule 213(g) provides that:

(1) Either Disciplinary Counsel or a respondent-attorney may petition the Supreme Court to enforce a subpoena that was not the subject of a challenge pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of § 91.3 (relating to validity of subpoena) or that was the subject of a challenge and has not been finally quashed by either the hearing committee or the Board Member designated to hear the appeal, provided that the party filing the petition to enforce attaches a certification in good faith that: a) the party exhausted reasonable efforts to secure the presence of the witness or the evidence within the witness’s custody or control, b) the testimony, records or other physical evidence of the witness will not be cumulative of other evidence available to the party, and c) the absence of the witness will substantially handicap the party from prosecuting or defending the charges, or from establishing a weighty aggravating or mitigating factor. If the object of a petition to enforce is a subpoena directed to the respondent-attorney for, in whole or in part, production pursuant to Enforcement Rule 221(g)(2) of required records under RPC 1.15(c) and Enforcement Rule 221(e), no certification will be required for the subpoena or portion thereof that pertains to the required records. See also § 91.151(e) (relating to contempt of the Board).

Official Note

The reference to § 91.151(e) is intended to make clear that, where the person who is resisting complying with a subpoena is the respondent-attorney, the provisions of this rule are cumulative of those in § 91.151(e).

(2) Upon receipt of a petition for enforcement of a subpoena, the Court shall issue a rule to show cause upon the person to whom the subpoena is directed, returnable within ten days, why the person should not be held in contempt. If the subpoena is directed to a respondent-attorney for production of required records and the respondent-attorney has not produced the records, the Court shall issue upon the respondent-attorney a rule to show cause why the respondent-attorney should not be placed on temporary suspension for failing to produce the records. If the period for response has passed without a response having been filed, or after consideration of any response, the Court shall issue an appropriate order.

The provisions of this § 91.4 amended November 14 and 17, 1989 and December 6 and 20, 1989, 20 Pa.B. 2009; amended June 11, 1993, effective immediately, 23 Pa.B. 2729; amended March 11, 2005, effective immediately, 35 Pa.B. 1656; amended January 30, 2015, effective March 2, 2015, 45 Pa.B. 544. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (363169) to (363170).